ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

On October 8, 2015, defendant Obert filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff's third amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the face of the complaint shows that plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required. The court has granted plaintiff two extensions of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion. Most recently, on December 3, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff to file and serve his opposition on or before December 29, 2015. To date, plaintiff has not filed his opposition.

Local Rule 230(l) 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 May 26, 2015, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to these kinds of motions and was cautioned that failure to oppose such motions may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motions.

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." In the order filed May 26, 2015, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendant's motion to dismiss. Given the previous two extensions, the court is not inclined to extend this time further. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).