1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 WAYNE D. CONTE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00949-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 v.

7 UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, DOES 1 THROUGH X, 8 Defendants. 9 10 In May 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted an application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (IFP”), which was granted (ECF No. 6) together with a Complaint against United States 12 Office of Personnel Management. ECF No. 1-1. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because 13 the only named defendant was immune from suit; however, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to 14 amend. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due no later than June 24, 2024. Id. at 2. 15 The Court explained it would recommend dismissal without prejudice if Plaintiff failed to timely 16 comply with the Court’s Order. Id. As of the date of this Recommendation, Plaintiff has not 17 complied with the Court’s Order. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed without 19 prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. 20 Dated this 30th day of September, 2024.

21

22 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 NOTICE 25 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in 26 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held 27 that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file 1 held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address 2 and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 3 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 4 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27