From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 7, 2013
2:12-cv-01610-APG-PAL (D. Nev. May. 7, 2013)

Opinion

2:12-cv-01610-APG-PAL

05-07-2013

JOHN MILLER, Plaintiff, v. ALEIDA MARTINEZ, et al., Defendant.


ORDER

On September 12, 2012, Plaintiff John Miller filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1). On February 27, 2013, the Magistrate Judge granted (#2) the request to proceed in forma pauperis and screened Plaintiff's Complaint. The Magistrate Judge dismissed the Complaint on the basis that all of Plaintiff's claims are contractual claims arising under state law, with no showing that diversity jurisdiction exists. Plaintiff was given leave to file an Amended Complaint by March 26, 2013.

On April 10, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (#4), noting that Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint nor requested an extension of time or taken any action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (#4) contains a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Objections to the Report and Recommendation (#4) were due by April 27, 2013. Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (#4) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The action is DISMISSED, as the Complaint was previously dismissed and Plaintiff has failed to file an Amended Complaint.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

_______________

ANDREW P. GORDON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Miller v. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 7, 2013
2:12-cv-01610-APG-PAL (D. Nev. May. 7, 2013)
Case details for

Miller v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MILLER, Plaintiff, v. ALEIDA MARTINEZ, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: May 7, 2013

Citations

2:12-cv-01610-APG-PAL (D. Nev. May. 7, 2013)