LeCompte v. Dhah et al

Filing 39

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Failure to Oppose Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/02/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY LECOMPTE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
DHAH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11cv02105 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE
TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

17

Plaintiff Timothy LeCompte (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 1, 2013, the Court ordered that the action

20

proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Dhah, Moon, Wang, Macias and

21

Zamora.

22

On September 2, 2014, Defendant Dhah filed a motion for summary judgment.

23

On October 6, 2014, Defendants Macias, Moon, Wang and Zamora filed their motion for

24

summary judgment.

25
26
27
28
1

1
2

Both motions contained the requirements for opposing summary judgment. However, Plaintiff
has not filed an opposition to either motion.1

3
4
5
6

This order serves to notify Plaintiff that if he does not file an opposition to the pending motions
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, they will be decided without his input.
Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff’s oppositions, if any, within seven (7) days of the date of
service.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

10

/s/ Dennis

December 2, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

On September 18, 2014, an order was returned to this Court as “Undeliverable, Inmate Refused.” However, a subsequent
order was not returned.

2