1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 FRANCISCO E. VIDAL, Case No. 2:25-cv-01724-APG-EJY
4 Plaintiff,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
5 v.
6 CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS et al.,
7 Defendants.
8
9 This action commenced when Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, submitted a Civil Rights
10 Complaint on September 12, 2025, but did not file an application to proceed in forma pauperis
11 (“IFP”) or pay the required filing fee to commence a civil action. ECF No. 1-1. The Court issued
12 an Order on February 2, 2026 giving Plaintiff through and including March 2, 2026 to file an IFP
13 application or pay the filing fee. ECF No. 3. The Court explained that failure to comply with the
14 Order would result in a recommendation to dismiss this action without prejudice. Id. at 2. As of the
15 date of this Recommendation, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Order or otherwise
16 communicated with the Court.
17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed without
18 prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Order.
19 Dated this 27th day of March, 2026.
20
21
ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
NOTICE
24
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be
25
in writing and filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held
26
that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file
27
objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also
28
1 held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address
2 and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal
3 factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
4 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.