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.

Peck v. Officer Bender

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 1, 2014

GREGORY L. PECK, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER BENDER, et al., Defendants

Gregory L. Peck ARR, Special Prosecutor/Senior International Investigator, Plaintiff, Pro se, Hacienda Heights, CA.

For Officer Bender, (Badge No 602), Officer Luciter, (Badge No. 594), City of La Habra, Defendants: James R Touchstone, Jones & Mayer, Fullerton, CA.

Bradley Johnson, Defendant, Pro se, La Habra, CA.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES F. EICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

PROCEEDINGS

On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On September 26, 2014, Defendants City of La Habra, Officer Bender and Officer Luciter filed " Defendant City of La Habra, Officer Bender and Officer Luciter's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, etc." By Order dated October 8, 2014, the Court ordered that Plaintiff file opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on or before November 14, 2014. The Minute Order cautioned: " [f]ailure to file timely opposition to the motion may result in the dismissal of this action." On October 15, 2014, Defendants Bradley Johnson and LAVco Automotive filed " The LAVCO Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint" (" LAVco motion"). By Minute Order dated October 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge ordered that Plaintiff file opposition to the LAVco motion on or before November 17, 2014. The Minute Order cautioned: " [f]ailure to file timely opposition may result in the dismissal of this action." Plaintiff failed to file timely opposition to either Motion to Dismiss.

DISCUSSION

The action should be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed timely to file opposition to potentially dispositive motions, despite court orders that he do so. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see also L.R. 7-12; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995).

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.


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.