Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05800/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05800-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

M. BELINDA TRAVIS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

JOHN F. POTTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 03-CV-5800-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON

SEPTEMBER 9, 2005, ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC.

22)

ORDER DEEMING MOTION SUBMITTED TO

THE COURT FOR DECISION

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for all

proceedings, including the entry of final judgment, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and Local Rule 73-301.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has been set for

hearing on September 9, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in the Courtroom of

the undersigned Magistrate Judge.

The Court has determined that Pursuant to Rule 78-230(c) of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California, because Plaintiff failed to file

timely opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

Plaintiff is not entitled to be heard in opposition to the motion

at a hearing.

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 25 Filed 09/02/05 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

Further, Pursuant to Rule 78-230(h) of the Local Rules of

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California, the Court finds that the Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is a matter that may appropriately be submitted

upon the record and briefs, including the Defendant’s notice of

motion, memorandum of points and authorities, statement of

undisputed facts, declarations, and exhibits submitted in support

of the motion.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion, presently set for

September 9, 2005, IS VACATED, and the motion IS DEEMED SUBMITTED

to the Court for decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05800-SMS Document 25 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 2