From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bjorlin v. Morrow

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 10, 2011
No. 2: 10-cv-2162 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2: 10-cv-2162 FCD KJN P.

August 10, 2011


ORDER


On June 27, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

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, 2011, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." In the order filed February 2, 2011, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: August 9, 2011


Summaries of

Bjorlin v. Morrow

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 10, 2011
No. 2: 10-cv-2162 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011)
Case details for

Bjorlin v. Morrow

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL P. BJORLIN, Plaintiff, v. DR. MORROW, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 10, 2011

Citations

No. 2: 10-cv-2162 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011)