Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-2431-EFB P
05-06-2015
ORDER
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 17, 2014, defendants Newman and Renolo filed a motion for summary judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion.
This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to the parties' consent. E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k).
On December 2, 2014, the court sua sponte granted plaintiff 21 days within which to respond to defendants' motion and warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the motion could result in dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). After plaintiff failed to file a response as directed, the court granted plaintiff another 21 days to respond to the motion, and again warned plaintiff that failure to respond could result in dismissal of this action. ECF No. 25.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of this order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
--------
The time for acting has once again passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, a statement of non-opposition, or otherwise responded to the court's order. Plaintiff has disobeyed this court's orders and failed to prosecute this action. The appropriate action is dismissal without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(b). Dated: May 6, 2015.
/s/_________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE