Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06638/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06638-12/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

ELONZA JESSE TYLER,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6638 OWW WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

E. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is Defendant

Williams’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

On March 9, 2006, an order was entered, finding that the operative pleading stated a

claim for relief as to Defendants Williams, Smith and Erly. On July 10, 2006, Defendant

Williams filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was served upon Plaintiff at his

address of record. Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion.

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides that the failure to oppose a motion "may be deemed a

waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion..." The court will deem plaintiff's failure

to oppose defendant's motion to dismiss a waiver, and recommend that the motion be granted on

that basis.

Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper grounds for dismissal. U.S. v.

Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, a court may dismiss an action for plaintiff's

Case 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

failure to oppose a motion to dismiss, where the applicable local rule determines that failure to

oppose a motion will be deemed a waiver of opposition. See Ghazali v.Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th

Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 119 (1995) (dismissal upheld even where plaintiff contends he

did not receive motion to dismiss, where plaintiff had adequate notice, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 5(b),

and time to file opposition); cf. Marshall v. Gates, No. 93-5022, slip op. 99, 105-06 (9th Cir. Jan.

4, 1995); Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for

summary judgment cannot be granted simply as a sanction for a local rules violation, without an

appropriate exercise of discretion).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as to

Defendant Williams.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within thirty

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 waives all objections to the judge’s

findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Dated: August 25, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06638-LJO-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/25/06 Page 3 of 3