Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05897/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05897-4/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

HOWARD EALY,

Plaintiff, CV F 02 5897 AWI WMW P

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

DR. ZOLLER, et al.,

Defendants.

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

defendants’s motion to dismiss. 

On December 30, 2005, defendants filed and served their motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The motion was served on plaintiff at his address of record. 

On January 18, 2006, defendants filed and served a Notice re Pro Se Inmate’s Obligations. 

Plaintiff has failed to file opposition to 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 1:02-cv-05897-AWI-WMW Document 45 Filed 04/05/06 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

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

without prejudice for 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)(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.

Dated: April 5, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05897-AWI-WMW Document 45 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 2