Opinion
No. 2: 13-cv-0145 KJN P
2013-09-20
HOWARD LEE ROWZEE, JR., Plaintiff, v. DAAIYALLAH FARDAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
On July 22, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On August 8, 2013, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that he had not received defendants' motion. On August 15, 2013, the court directed defendants to re-serve plaintiff with the motion to dismiss and file proof of re-service with the court.
On August 15, 2013, defendants filed proof of re-service of their motion to dismiss on plaintiff on that date. 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 May 2, 2013, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.
Accordingly, plaintiff's failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) be granted; and
2. This action be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE