Filed: Jul. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Several defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 8, 2012. 1 Plaintiff was granted a 30 day extension to file an opposition on April 11, 2012, however that time has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise communicated with the court. On June 6, 2012, the undersigned ordered that plaintiff fi
Summary: ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Several defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 8, 2012. 1 Plaintiff was granted a 30 day extension to file an opposition on April 11, 2012, however that time has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise communicated with the court. On June 6, 2012, the undersigned ordered that plaintiff fil..
More
ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Several defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 8, 2012.1 Plaintiff was granted a 30 day extension to file an opposition on April 11, 2012, however that time has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise communicated with the court. On June 6, 2012, the undersigned ordered that plaintiff file an opposition to the motions to dismiss within 14 days or else it would be recommended that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff has still not communicated with the court.
Local Rule 230(1) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion. . . ." On January 4, 2012, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.
Accordingly, plaintiff's failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the motions and in the alternative the undersigned finds that the motions have merit.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 26, 31) be granted; and
2. This action be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
