From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franklin v. McDonald

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 8, 2011
No. 2:10-cv-1147 MCE JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:10-cv-1147 MCE JFM (PC).

April 8, 2011


ORDER


On February 25, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 December 2, 2010, 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 December 2, 2010], 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 be pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: April 7, 2011.


Summaries of

Franklin v. McDonald

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 8, 2011
No. 2:10-cv-1147 MCE JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2011)
Case details for

Franklin v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:ROOSEVELT FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, v. MIKE McDONALD, Warden, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Apr 8, 2011

Citations

No. 2:10-cv-1147 MCE JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2011)