Royal v. Knight et al

Filing 44

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff To File A Response To Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Within Thirty Days (ECF No. 40 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/5/2012. (Responses due by 1/9/2013)(Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MARLIN LATTEREAL ROYAL, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01407-BAM PC ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS v. S. KNIGHT, et al., (ECF No. 40) 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Marlin Lattereal Royal (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following resolution of 17 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, this action is proceeding on the first amended complaint against 18 Defendant Knight for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in 19 violation of the First Amendment, and Defendant Clark for failure to protect in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 36.) 21 On October 30, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has failed 22 to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(l). 23 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ 25 motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days from the date of service of 26 this order; and 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 2. 2 The failure to respond to Defendants’ motion in compliance with this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: cm411 December 5, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?