Opinion
No. 2: 12-cv-2154 KJN P
07-31-2013
RICHARD KIMBRO, Plaintiff, v. MIRANDA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER and
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 12, 2013, defendant LaJeunesse filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On May 16, 2013, defendants Hougland, Miranda, Clark, McBride and Kelly filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 12(b)(6). On June 19, 2013, plaintiff was granted a thirty day extension of time to file his oppositions to both pending motions. Plaintiff has not opposed the motions.
Local Rule 230(1) 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 February 2, 2013, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.
Accordingly, plaintiff's failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the motions.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendant LaJeunesse's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) be granted;
2. The motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Hougland, Miranda, Clark, McBride and Kelly (ECF No. 30) be granted.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
______________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE