Thompson v. Meyer-Zlokovich

Full title: ANDREW B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. MEYER-ZLOKOVICH, et al, Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 21, 2015

1:14-cv-01521-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015)

Opinion

1:14-cv-01521-LJO-JLT (PC)

08-21-2015

ANDREW B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. MEYER-ZLOKOVICH, et al, Defendants.

Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 16)

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on his claims in the Complaint against Defendants Correctional Officers D. Meyers, Morrows, Moreno, and A. Rocha for use of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (Docs. 1, 9.)

On July 13, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which included notice to Plaintiff of the requirements if he desired to file an opposition. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion despite lapse of the requisite time. Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, the court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion within 21 days from the date of service of this order;¹ and
2. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to comply with this order will result dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 A Second Informational Order containing the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment issued earlier this month. (See Doc. 18.) --------

Dated: August 21 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE