Opinion
2:19-cv-00749-APG-EJY
01-28-2022
REGINAL HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN GRIERSON, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 10, 2021, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants J. Arqueta, J. Rasner, Caseworker Hernandez, and Mario Vasquez should not be dismissed from this lawsuit. ECF No. 40. On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff responded providing additional information regarding these four defendants. ECF No. 45. On December 6, 2021, the Court ordered the Nevada Attorney General's Office (“AG's Office”) to file a notice advising whether it could identify any of the four defendants and, if so, whether it would accept service on behalf of such defendants. The AG's Office was further ordered to file under seal the last known addresses of any former state employee-defendant for whom it cannot accept service. ECF No. 46.
On December 27, 2021, the AG's Office filed a Notice Re: Acceptance of Service on behalf of Guillermo Hernandez while advising it could “not accept service on behalf of Jason Arqueta (believed to be Argueta), J. Kronberg Rasner[] or Mario Vasquez, Jr.” ECF No. 48. The AG's Office further stated it could not locate any information regarding J. Kronberg Rasner. Id. at 2. The last known addresses of Jason Argueta and Mario Vasquez, Jr. were filed under seal on December 27, 2021. ECF No. 49.
As of this juncture, Defendant J. Kronberg Rasner cannot be identified as a current or former employee of the Nevada Department of Corrections despite Plaintiff providing his full name, which is not common. The undersigned therefore finds it appropriate to recommend dismissal of Defendant Rasner without prejudice so as to allow this matter to proceed in an efficient manner. To this end, the Court ordered service on Defendants Argueta and Vasquez, Jr. earlier on this same date.
Accordingly, and based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that J. Kornberg Rasner be dismissed from this case without prejudice.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may 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). 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).