Morgan v. National Park Service ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 || Miles R Morgan, 2:24-cv-01546-RFB-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), 5 |] vs. Order 6 || National Park Service, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pro se plaintiff Miles R Morgan filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and 9 complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The Court previously denied plaintiff's IFP and ordered him to either file 10 || the long-form IFP or pay the full filing fee. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff filed a long-form IFP application (ECF 11 || No. 5). However, the Court denied the IFP application and ordered plaintiff to file a new long-form IFP 12 || application or pay the filing fee. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff paid the filing fee. ECF No. 7. 13 Plaintiff can proceed with his case pro se, without prior screening, since he is not a prisoner, he is 14 || not proceeding in forma pauperis, and he paid the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); See also Salat || v. County of Sacramento, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89314, 2 citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Bardes 16 || v. Magera, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49289, 2008 WL 2627134 10 (D.S.C. 2008) (finding that it is error to 17 || screen a non-prisoner pro se plaintiff's complaint when the plaintiff pays the filing fee). 18 19 ACCORDINGLY, 20 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 21 22 DATED this 18" day of November 2024 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. AL po, 2 a 24 A GY ) 25 a Allier II United States Magistrate Judge 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, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure 8 to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order 9 and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 10 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR 11 IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. 12 The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing 13 party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of 14 the action. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25