IN THE MATTER OF SORIA, 2:15-cv-00498-MMD-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150518973
Visitors: 3
Filed: May 15, 2015
Latest Update: May 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . On April 29, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice petitioner's request for the issuance of subpoenas in relation to a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office. Docket No. 3. The Court advised petitioner of various deficiencies in that request and indicated that she could renew her request if she believed she could cure the deficiencies. See id. at 2. The Court warned petitioner: " Any renewed request shall be filed no later than May 13,
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . On April 29, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice petitioner's request for the issuance of subpoenas in relation to a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office. Docket No. 3. The Court advised petitioner of various deficiencies in that request and indicated that she could renew her request if she believed she could cure the deficiencies. See id. at 2. The Court warned petitioner: " Any renewed request shall be filed no later than May 13, 2..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
On April 29, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice petitioner's request for the issuance of subpoenas in relation to a proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office. Docket No. 3. The Court advised petitioner of various deficiencies in that request and indicated that she could renew her request if she believed she could cure the deficiencies. See id. at 2. The Court warned petitioner: "Any renewed request shall be filed no later than May 13, 2015. The failure to renew the request by that date will result in the Court administratively closing this action." Id. at 2-3 (emphasis in original). Petitioner has since filed a notice of appearance by an attorney, see Docket No. 4, but she has not filed a renewed request for issuance of subpoenas.
Accordingly, the Court hereby INSTRUCTS the Clerk's Office to close this case.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The fact that this ruling terminates this miscellaneous discovery action does not render it "dispositive" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 636, see, e.g., Agincourt Gaming, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., 2014 WL 4079555, *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 15, 2014) (citing Feist v. RCN Corp., 2012 WL 4835038, *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012)), so the Court's ruling is fashioned as an "order" rather than a "report and recommendation."
Source: Leagle
