Windham v. Marin et al

Filing 56

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to File Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition within Twenty-One Days signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/25/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
M. MARIN, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-01636-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NONOPPOSITION WITHIN TWENTY-ONE
DAYS
(ECF No. 49)

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth

18

Amendment claims of excessive force against Defendants M. Marin, D. Uribe, W. Rasley, J.

19

Contreras, A. Capano, R. Rubio, and Doe #1, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical

20

needs against Defendants C. Navarro, V. Morales, M. Marin, and S. Shiver.

21

On September 2, 2015, Defendants filed a combined motion for summary judgment or

22

partial summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff was provided with notice of the

23

requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 49-7.) Plaintiff was

24

granted several extensions of time to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion. However, even

25

under the extended deadline, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before November 9, 2015. To

26

date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

27
28

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a
statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion within twenty-one (21) days. Plaintiff is
1

1

warned that the failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, with

2

prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 25, 2015

6

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2