1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 CHRISTOPHER MILTON, Case No. 2:25-cv-01321-CDS-EJY

4 Plaintiff REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 5 v.

6 CONNOR SAPPHIRE, JAKE GULLO,

7 Defendants

8 9 On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this case with initiating documents that were not 10 accompanied by an Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (sometimes “IFP”) or the $405 filing 11 fee necessary to commence a civil action in federal court. ECF No. 1. On July 25, 2025, the Court 12 entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to file an IFP application or pay the filing fee no later than 13 September 25, 2025. ECF No. 3. On August 1, 2025, mail sent to Plaintiff was returned as 14 undeliverable; however, that same day the Court verified the address for Clark County Detention 15 Center (“CCDC”), to which the Order was sent, was correct. On August 4, 2025, the Court remailed 16 the Court’s Order (ECF No. 3) to Plaintiff at CCDC. As of the date of this Order the August 4, 2025 17 mailing has not been returned. Also as of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee 18 or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. In its July 25, 2025 Order, the Court explained 19 to Plaintiff that failure to pay the filing fee or file an IFP application would result in a 20 recommendation to dismiss this case in its entirety. ECF No. 3 at 2. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed in its entirety, 22 without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order. 23 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025. 24

25 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28 1 NOTICE 2 Under Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in 3 writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court holds 4 the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections 5 within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). The Ninth Circuit also held 6 that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and 7 brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal 8 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

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

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28