Peck v. Bender

Full title: GREGORY L. PECK, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER BENDER, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Dec 1, 2014

SA CV 14-1218-JAK(E) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2014)

Opinion

GREGORY L. PECK, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER BENDER, et al., Defendants. No. SA CV 14-1218-JAK(E) United States District Court, C.D. California. December 1, 2014

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHARLES F. EICK, Magistrate Judge.

         This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

         PROCEEDINGS

         On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On September 26, 2014, Defendants City of La Habra, Officer Bender and Officer Luciter filed "Defendant City of La Habra, Officer Bender and Officer Luciter's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, etc." By Order dated October 8, 2014, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on or before November 14, 2014. The Minute Order cautioned: "[f]ailure to file timely opposition to the motion may result in the dismissal of this action." On October 15, 2014, Defendants Bradley Johnson and LAVco Automotive filed "The LAVCO Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint" ("LAVco motion"). By Minute Order dated October 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Plaintiff file opposition to the LAVco motion on or before November 17, 2014. The Minute Order cautioned: "[f]ailure to file timely opposition may result in the dismissal of this action." Plaintiff failed to file timely opposition to either Motion to Dismiss.

         DISCUSSION

         The action should be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed timely to file opposition to potentially dispositive motions, despite court orders that he do so. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also L.R. 7-12; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995).

         RECOMMENDATION

         For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.