Warren v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Allanna Warren, 4 2:23-cv-02007-JAD-MDC Plaintiff(s), vs. Order Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Defendant(s).

Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Reply (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff requests additional time to reply to defendant’s Response (ECF No. 65) to her Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 57) and Motions for Charges of Perjury (ECF No. 58). The Court ordered plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 57) and Motion for Charges of Perjury (ECF No. 58) to be struck from the docket. ECF No. 66. Defendant filed their Response (ECF No. 65) to the Motions while the Court’s Order (ECF No. 66) was drafted but before it had been filed. Since the Motions (ECF No. 57 and 58) at issue were struck from the docket, defendant’s Response (ECF No. 65) is moot. Therefore, the Court strikes defendant’s Response (ECF No. 65) and plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Reply (ECF No. 67) pursuant to its powers to control the docket. The district courts have inherent authority to control their dockets and to "achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1991).

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Response to Motions (ECF No. 65) and the Motion to Extend Time to Reply (ECF No. 67) be stricken.

2. Plaintiff shall not file any further Motions or documents until the Court: a. grants her IFP application or she pays the full filing fee; AND 1 b. her Complaint is screened and accepted.

2 NOTICE 3 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and || recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 6 determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified ||time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).

8 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) || failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District || Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 11 |} 1153, 1157 (th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

12 || Pursuant to LR JA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any || change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, || or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may || result in dismissal of the action.

17 DATED this 19" day of April 2024.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Je), YT Jo ‘\ Gf | 20 Hon. □□□ 7 Cowie Til 41 United States strate Judge