Ortiz v. Cox et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 8/18/2011 ORDERING that the Plaintiff shall file an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the 22 Motion for Summary Judgment within 30 days. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROMAN ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

COX, et al.,

14

/

15

On July 15, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to

16
17

ORDER

vs.

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-0351 JFM (PC)

Defendants.

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

18

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

19

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

20

the granting of the motion . . . .” On September 23, 2010, plaintiff was advised of the

21

requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may

22

be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.
Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

23
24

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

25

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed September 23, 2010, plaintiff was advised

26

/////
1

1

that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

2

dismissed.

3

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

4

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion for summary

5

judgment or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in

6

dismissal of this action be pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

7

DATED: August 18, 2011.

8
9
10
11

/014;orti0351.46o

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2