Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344-44/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 

MARK ANTHONY MORENO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID MEDINA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv-1344-JAM-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 2, 2014, defendants Hitchcock, James and Medina filed a motion for 

summary judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for 

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 

1998). After multiple extensions of time, the court granted plaintiff a final extension of thirty 

days from October 17, 2014, in which to file his opposition. See ECF No. 149. That time for 

acting passed and plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the 

motion. 

On December 4, 2014, the court warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the motion 

could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The 

court also granted plaintiff a 14-day extension of time to respond. The time for acting has once 

again passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, a statement of non-opposition, or otherwise 

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 151 Filed 01/06/15 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

responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff has disobeyed this court’s orders and failed to prosecute 

this action. The appropriate action is dismissal without prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(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 fourteen 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.” Failure to file objections 

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

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: January 5, 2015. 

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 151 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 2