O'Boyle v. Carrasco et al

Filing 95

NOTICE AND ORDER signed by Judge Brett H Ludwig on 1/3/22. Plaintiff may respond to 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment by 1/31/22. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(MP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RYAN P. O’BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-0959-bhl

GILBERT CARRASCO, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ryan P. O’Boyle, who is representing himself, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§1983. On December 30, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 87.
Under Civil L. R. 56(b)(2), O’Boyle’s response materials are due within thirty days of service of
the motion, or by January 31, 2022. In responding to the motion, O’Boyle must respond to each
of the proposed findings of fact by agreeing with each proposed fact or explaining why he disagrees
with a particular proposed fact. If he does not indicate one way or the other, the Court will assume
that he does not dispute the proposed fact and will accept the fact as true. O’Boyle must support
every disagreement with a proposed fact by citing to evidence. He can do that by relying on
documents that he attaches to his response or by telling the Court his version of what happened in
an affidavit or an unsworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. §1746.1 An unsworn declaration is a way
for a party to tell his side of the story while declaring to the Court that everything in the declaration
is true and correct. O’Boyle must also respond to the legal arguments in the brief.

At the bottom of his declaration, he should state: “I declare under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date]. [Signature].” 28 U.S.C. §1746(2).
1

Case 2:16-cv-00959-BHL Filed 01/03/22 Page 1 of 2 Document 95

If O’Boyle fails to respond to the motion by the deadline, the Court will accept all facts
asserted by Defendants as undisputed, which will likely result in summary judgment being granted
in Defendants’ favor and the case being dismissed. Further, the Court reminds O’Boyle that, under
General L. R. 83(f) and Civil L. R. 7(d), his failure to respond to Defendants’ motion may be
sufficient cause for the Court to grant the motion as a sanction for noncompliance with Civil L.R.
56 and this order.
If O’Boyle believes he needs additional time to prepare his response materials, he must file
a motion asking the Court to extend the deadline before his response materials are due. If he files
such a motion, he must explain why he needs additional time and how much additional time he
needs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, if by January 31, 2022, O’Boyle does not respond
to the summary judgment motion or does not request additional time to do so, the Court will accept
all facts asserted by Defendants as undisputed and may grant the motion as a sanction for
noncompliance with this order and the local rules. See General L. R. 83(f); Civil L.R. 7(d).
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on January 3, 2022.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge

2
Case 2:16-cv-00959-BHL Filed 01/03/22 Page 2 of 2 Document 95