Mayfield v. Mix et al

Filing 68

Notice To Plaintiff Regarding Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment; ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/14/2014. (Replies due by 3/11/2014) (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DWAYNE MAYFIELD, 1:10cv01091 AWI DLB PC 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12 M. MIX, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff Dwayne Mayfield (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on June 16, 2010. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint for violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants E. Mason and M. Mix. On December 27, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants also provided Plaintiff with the requirements for opposing a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Plaintiff is warned that if he does not oppose the motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 motion will be decided without the benefit of any arguments he may have. If summary judgment is 2 granted in favor of Defendants, judgment will be entered for Defendants and the action will be 3 closed. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: /s/ Dennis February 14, 2014 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 3b142a 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?