Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-00255-DAD-SAB (PC)
04-02-2018
RODERICK BRYAN RUSSELL, Plaintiff, v. DR. K. TOOR, Defendant.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 21)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Roderick Byron Russell, Jr., is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Toor for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On January 3, 2018, Defendant Toor filed a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the grounds that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's claim. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 24 at 19-22.)
In the meantime, the Court issued findings and recommendations regarding which claims this matter would proceed upon in light of Williams v. King, — F.3d — , No. 15-15259, 2017 WL 8180205 (9th Cir. 2017). The district judge has since adopted those findings and recommendations, and ruled that this action proceeds solely on the claim noted above. (ECF No. 25.)
Plaintiff's response was due within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Defendant's motion. That deadline has passed, but Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion, nor has he otherwise communicated with the Court.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(1), Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant's motion within twenty-one (21) days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 2 , 2018
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE