Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01009-7/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

GEORGE D. MOORE,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1009 LJO WMW P 

vs. FINDING S AND RECOMMENDATION

D. SNELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights actin

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 9, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Local

Rule 12(b) in the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies

prior to filing suit. 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 1:05-cv-01009-LJO -WMW Document 22 Filed 12/12/07 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

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 (9

th

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 for

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

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). 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 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file th

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01009-LJO -WMW Document 22 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 2