Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al

Filing 1074

Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al

Doc. 1074

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Larry Lee Robinson,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Swift Transportation, et al. ) ) Defendants, ) ) )

ORDER No. CIV-05-1244-PHX-SRB

Defendants Martin and Freet filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 19, 2007 and served Plaintiff on that same date. On December 20, 2007, the Court issued an order advising Plaintiff that his response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was due no later than 30 days from the date of the order. The Court further advised Plaintiff that "The Court may, in its discretion, treat your failure to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as a consent to the granting of that Motion without further notice, and judgement may be entered dismissing this action without prejudice." As of this date, no responsive memorandum has been filed. LRCiv 7.2(i) provides in part "if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memorandum, ...such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." Pursuant to this rule, the Court deems Plaintiff's failure to serve and file the required answering memorandum a consent to the granting of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35).

The Court has also reviewed the Motion to Dismiss and finds that Defendants Martin and Freet are subject to dismissal on the merits. As employees of a private entity, Plaintiff cannot state a claim against them pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1983. IT IS ORDERED granting Martin and Freet Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.

DATED this 12th day of February, 2008.

-2-