Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02959/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02959-17/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUDY AROCHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. SAUCEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2959 LKK KJN P

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

On January 14, 2014, defendants Hart and Munoz filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and (b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

Local Rule 230(l) 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 June 11, 2013, 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.

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

granting of the motion. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 

98) filed by defendants Hart and Munoz be granted.

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 fourteen days 

Case 2:11-cv-02959-MCE-KJN Document 104 Filed 02/26/14 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

27

28

2

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 response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: February 25, 2014

Ar2959.46

Case 2:11-cv-02959-MCE-KJN Document 104 Filed 02/26/14 Page 2 of 2