From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PETERSON v. CITY OF OMAK

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Dec 29, 2010
No. CV-10-31-LRS (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2010)

Opinion

No. CV-10-31-LRS.

December 29, 2010


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


On October 28, 2010, Defendant Worden filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 12) which was noted for hearing without oral argument on December 17. On November 9, 2010, the remaining named Defendants filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 18) which was noted for hearing without oral argument on December 29, 2010.

Plaintiff has not filed a response to either of these motions. Responses were due no later than 21 days after service of the motions. LR 7.1(c)(1) There is no stipulation or order of record extending the response time. A failure to timely file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion may be considered by the court as consent on the part of the party failing to file such memorandum to the entry of an order adverse to the party in default. LR 7.1(e). Furthermore, pursuant to LR 56.1(d), in determining any motion for summary judgment, the court may assume the facts claimed by the moving party are admitted to exist except as and to the extent such facts are controverted by a statement of material facts filed by the non-moving party. Plaintiff, the non-moving party, has not filed a statement of material facts.

Based on LR 7.1(e) and the uncontroverted statements of material facts (Ct. Rec. 16 and 19) and memoranda of points and authorities (Ct. Rec. 13 and 22) filed by the Defendants, said Defendants' Motions For Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec. 12 and 18) are GRANTED. The undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that Defendants did not use excessive force against the Plaintiff in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights; did not violate his rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act; and are not culpable of any act or omission giving rise to tort liability under Washington law. Defendants are awarded judgment on all of the federal and state law claims set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

As supported by the declarations of Defendants (Ct. Rec. 15 and 20) and exhibits attached thereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Executive is directed to enter judgment accordingly and forward copies of the judgment and this order to counsel of record. This file shall be closed.

DATED this 29th of December, 2010.


Summaries of

PETERSON v. CITY OF OMAK

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Dec 29, 2010
No. CV-10-31-LRS (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2010)
Case details for

PETERSON v. CITY OF OMAK

Case Details

Full title:JIMMY SEO PETERSON, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF OMAK, MICHAEL MORRISON, SEAN…

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

Date published: Dec 29, 2010

Citations

No. CV-10-31-LRS (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2010)