District Court, D. Nevada, 2025

Mackay v. Lane

Mackay v. Lane
District Court, D. Nevada · Decided February 3, 2025
Mackay v. Lane

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Deanna M. MacKay, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01200-JAD-NJK Plaintiff 6 Order Sustaining Objection to v. Report & Recommendation and Giving the 7 Plaintiff until 2/24/25 to File Amended Judge Robert W. Lane, et al., Complaint 9 Defendants [ECF Nos. 7, 8] 11 The court screened Deanna M. MacKay’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend by January 10, 2025. MacKay was warned that her failure to file an amended complaint by that deadline would result in this case being dismissed and closed. So when January 10th came and went with no filing, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to dismiss this case.1 In a document that purports to be a request “for Second Amendment,” MacKay objects to that dismissal recommendation, explaining that she had been unable to file an amended complaint because she had been sick and because various other circumstances conspired against her.2 I liberally construe that request as an objection to the report and recommendation and a motion to extend the deadline to file the amended complaint.

20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that MacKay’s objection [ECF No. 8] is SUSTAINED, and the report and recommendation for dismissal [ECF No. 7] is REJECTED at this time to give MacKay one more opportunity to file the second amended complaint. MacKay’s deadline to file that complaint is extended to February 24, 2025. If she fails to file a proper, second ECF No. 7.

2 ECF No. 8.

1 |}amended complaint by February 24, 2025, this case will be dismissed and closed without || further prior notice.

3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to SEAL pages 7-21 of ECF No. 8 because they are medical records that MacKay attached to her objection. The || personal and private nature of those documents constitutes compelling reasons under Kamakana || v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), that outweigh the || traditional right of public access to court filings.

9 ___ Pe US. District|Judge J énnifer Dorsey 10 February 3, 2025

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.