From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Grove

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 21, 2021
2:18-cv-02549-TLN-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)

Opinion

2:18-cv-02549-TLN-JDP (PC)

12-21-2021

COLEMAN KENYATTA SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff, v. J. GROVE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PAPERWORK, GRANTING HIM FOURTEEN DAYS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND HOLDING THE NOVEMBER 5, 2021 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ABEYANCE

JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 30, 2021, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 37. In violation of Local Rule 230(1), plaintiff failed to timely file a response. Accordingly, on September 16, 2021, I ordered plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's local rules. ECF No. 40. I notified him that if he wished to continue this lawsuit, he also needed to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion. Id.

After plaintiff failed to timely respond to that order, I recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ECF No. 41. I also notified the parties that any objections to that recommendation were to be filed within fourteen days. No. objections were filed. However, plaintiff has since filed a document that asks the court to send him the paperwork needed to proceed with this suit. ECF No. 42.

Plaintiffs request is too vague to apprise the court of documents he is attempting to obtain. The motion is therefore denied. However, in light of plaintiff s filing, I will grant plaintiff one final opportunity to file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Should he again fail to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion, the November 5, 2021 findings and recommendations will be submitted to the district judge for consideration.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs request for paperwork is construed as a motion and, so construed, is denied.
2. The November 5, 2021 findings and recommendations, ECF No. 41, are held in abeyance.
3. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 37.
4. Should plaintiff fail to timely file a response to defendants' motion, the November 5, 2021 findings and recommendations will be submitted to the district judge for consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Grove

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 21, 2021
2:18-cv-02549-TLN-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)
Case details for

Smith v. Grove

Case Details

Full title:COLEMAN KENYATTA SMITH, Jr., Plaintiff, v. J. GROVE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 21, 2021

Citations

2:18-cv-02549-TLN-JDP (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)