IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 24, 2010
NORVEL R. WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AGENCY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss and/or For Summary Judgment" (Dkt. No. 44) came before the court for hearing on the undersigned's law and motion calendar on July 8, 2010. Assistant United States Attorney Bobbie J. Montoya appeared on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, appeared on his own behalf.
At that time, the undersigned was prepared to rule on defendant's motion. Plaintiff's opposition was fatally flawed, and his argument at the hearing cured none of the deficiencies apparent from the briefs. However, following the lengthy hearing, and out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned permitted plaintiff an additional opportunity to obtain legal representation and file a supplemental or revised opposition to defendant's motion. (See Order, July 9, 2010, Dkt. No. 49.) Irrespective of plaintiff's ability to retain legal counsel, the undersigned ordered that plaintiff's supplemental or revised opposition to defendant's motion, if any, be filed on or before August 16, 2010. (Id. at 2.) The undersigned clearly stated that this would be plaintiff's "final opportunity to oppose defendant's motion." (Id.)
The court's docket reveals that plaintiff failed to file any such supplemental or revised opposition. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss and/or For Summary Judgment" (Dkt. No. 44) is submitted on the briefs and appropriate portions of the record on file with the court.
2. No further submissions in opposition to defendant's motion will be considered in resolving defendant's motion.
3. The court will resolve defendant's motion through separately filed findings and recommendations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.