Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01917/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01917-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 On April 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a pleading stating that he paid the filing fee. Court 1

records indicate that plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in the instant action. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM CONSIGLIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1917 DFL GGH P

vs.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On March 3, 2006, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. Accordingly, on April 10, 2006, the court ordered

plaintiff to show cause within ten days why defendant’s motion should not granted. Plaintiff has

not filed a response to the April 10, 2996, order. 

1

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On January 12, 2006, 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. 

Case 2:05-cv-01917-DFL-GGH Document 34 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of

opposition to the granting of the motion. In the alternative, the court has reviewed the motion

and finds that it has merit. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s March 3, 2006,

motion to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

con1917.dis

Case 2:05-cv-01917-DFL-GGH Document 34 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2