Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): A review of the record, appellant’s response to this court’s October 17, 2005 order to show cause and the response, reply and sur-reply indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court did not err in dismissing appellant’s action. See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendants failure to file motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict did not prevent district court from granting motion for directed verdict for which court reserved decision (B) holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond  may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case (C) holding that district court did not err in summarily granting defendants motion for summary judgment pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff failed to respond to motion after district court had warned plaintiff that it would deem his failure to respond a consent to granting of motion (D) holding that because plaintiff failed to advance evidence rebutting motion for summary judgment alongside a concession in their interrogatory response the district court did not err in granting defendants motion for summary judgment (E) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
Output (English): holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond  may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case