Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stanfield v. Callaway

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 14, 2009

JAMES EDWARD STANFIELD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STEVEN CALLAWAY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action against correctional officials employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On July 10, 2009, Defendants Callaway, Woofolk and Casimiro filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion.

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion..." The court will deem plaintiff's failure to oppose defendant's motion to dismiss a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on that basis.

Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v.Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 119 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b), and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, No. 93-5022, slip op. 99, 105-06 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an appropriate exercise of discretion).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted on the basis of Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty 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 reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090814

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.