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.

Darryl Wakefield v. Richard Indermill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 21, 2011

DARRYL WAKEFIELD,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICHARD INDERMILL,
DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 50, 51) / THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Darryl Wakefield ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA")). This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed August 11, 2009, against Defendant Wakefield for violations of the First Amendment and RLUIPA.

On June 22, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(l).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and

2. The failure to respond to Defendant's motion in compliance with this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

cm411

20110721

© 1992-2011 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.