IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 21, 2012
ROYALTON MCCAMEY, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
On August 10, 2012, defendant Lipson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . ." By order, filed on June 7, 2012, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.
Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." In the order filed on June 7, 2012, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-eight days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendant Lipson's August 10, 2012, motion to dismiss. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.