Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00275-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL W. SCHLAICK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0275 MCE GGH P

vs.

WARDEN CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2005, defendant Dickinson filed a summary judgment

motion. On September 21, 2005, the remaining defendants filed a separate summary judgment

motion. On November 1, 2005, plaintiff filed a document titled “Opposition to Defendants

Motion for Summary Judgment.” While it is clear that plaintiff intends this opposition to address

the summary judgment motion filed September 21, 2005, it is unclear whether plaintiff’s

opposition addresses defendant Dickinson’s summary judgment motion. More importantly, the

opposition is untimely if it is also addressed to defendant Dickinson’s motion.

On April 10, 2006, the court granted plaintiff ten days to inform the court whether

his November 1, 2005, opposition was intended to address defendant Dickinson’s summary

judgment motion and, if so, why the opposition should not be deemed untimely as to defendant

Case 2:04-cv-00275-MCE -GGH Document 38 Filed 05/17/06 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

2

Dickinson’s motion. Ten days passed and plaintiff did not respond to this order. Because

plaintiff has failed to comply with the April 10, 2006, order, the court recommends that this

action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the April 10, 2006, order. See Local Rule 11-110;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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: 5/17/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

sch275.fr

Case 2:04-cv-00275-MCE -GGH Document 38 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2