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
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?