Opinion
No. CV 09-1153 BB/GBW.
August 27, 2010
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On June 28, 2010, Defendants filed their Martinez Report with the Court and mailed a copy to Plaintiff. Doc. 15. On July 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court stating he had not yet received a copy of the report and expressing concern about his ability to meet the impending response deadline. Doc. 16. The envelope used to carry Plaintiff's letter bore a return address for Plaintiff that differed from the one on file with the Court. See id. On July 16, 2010, the Court construed Plaintiff's letter as a motion for an extension of time to respond, granted it, and ordered the clerk's office to mail a copy of the Martinez Report to the return address on Plaintiff's envelope. Doc. 17. By virtue of that order, Plaintiff had until August 16, 2010 to respond to the report and the order was mailed to both of Plaintiff's addresses. Id. On July 23, 2010, the Court received confirmation that the Martinez Report sent to Plaintiff from the Court via certified mail had been received. Doc. 18.
Plaintiff, however, has still not filed his response to the Martinez Report. Under our Local Rules "[t]he failure of a party to file and serve a response in opposition to a motion within the time prescribed for doing so constitutes consent to grant the motion." Local Rule 7.1(b). Moreover, Plaintiff's failure to abide by the deadline ordered by the Court indicates a lack of interest in litigating his claims. See Martinez v. Internal Revenue Service, 744 F.2d 71, 73 (10th Cir. 1984); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). The Court will require Plaintiff to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days from entry of this order, Plaintiff shall file a response showing cause, if any, why his complaint should not be dismissed; a copy of this order shall be sent to Plaintiff at both of the addresses used for the order at doc. 17.