1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || Susan Knisely, 2:25-cv-00688-RFB-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), s || vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION

6 || Pam Bondi, 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Leave Emergency Motion — Personal Safety 9 || “Motion for Service”) (ECF No. 18). Having reviewed the motion, the Court does not find that it 10 || constitutes an emergency under Fed. R. Civ. P. 87, nor sufficient grounds to order the US Marshal to 11 || complete service of process, as plaintiff appears to request. See Erickson v. Pardus,

, 127 12 ||S. Ct. 2197,

(2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed[.]’”). 13 || Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), “[a]t the plaintiff's request, the court may order that service be made 14 || by a United States Marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court. The court 15 || must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under

orasa 16 seaman under

.” Plaintiff paid the full filing fee; therefore, plaintiff is not proceeding in 17 || forma pauperis. See ECF No. 3. Nor is plaintiff a seaman. Plaintiff has neither stated any reasonable 18 || grounds nor cited any authority to support her request for marshal service. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of 19 || a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes a consent to the denial 20 || of the motion.”). 21 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Service (ECF No. 18) is DENIED. 22 DATED this 21* day of July 2025. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. fo oe 24 Hon, pRathangy. Count 35 Unga States 7 Jutige

1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 3 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 8 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 9 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

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

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 12 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 13 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 14 result in dismissal of the action.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25