Fryman v. Traquina et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/29/09 ordering that within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Plummer, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 If plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed with this matter, he should file a request to dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN FRYMAN, Plaintiff, vs. A. TRAQUINA, et al., Defendants. / On June 10, 2009, defendants Traquina and Noriega filed an amended motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.1 Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . ." On January 10, 2008, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. ORDER No. CIV S-07-2636 JAM DAD P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
DAD:9 frym2636.46

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." In the order filed January 10, 2008, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). DATED: July 29, 2009.

2