Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02522/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02522-19/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

MICHAEL AARON JAYNE,

Plaintiff, No. 2:07-cv- 2522 LKK KJN P

vs.

SPRINT PCS, INC., et. al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with an action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 8, 2010, the court ordered plaintiff to file an opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment that was filed on October 14, 2009, within 14 days, or the

undersigned would recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. No. 119. The

court notes that plaintiff has received several extensions to file an opposition. Dkts. No. 109,

112, 119. The 14 days has since passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion for

summary judgment or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment simply because the

nonmoving party does not file opposing material, even if the failure to oppose violates a local

rule. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651,

Case 2:07-cv-02522-LKK -KJN Document 120 Filed 05/12/10 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

652 (9th Cir. 1994), citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, when the local rule does not require, but merely permits the court to grant a motion for

summary judgment, the district court has discretion to determine whether noncompliance should

be deemed consent to the motion. Id.

In the instant case, plaintiff has been granted several extensions and warned that

his failure to oppose the motion for summary judgment would result in the case being dismissed

with prejudice. Based on plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the court concludes that plaintiff

has consented to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, the court finds

that defendants’ motion has merit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED, that defendants October 14,

2009 motion for summary judgement (Dkt. No. 97) be granted and this action be dismissed with

prejudice.

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 twentyone 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 response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

parties are advised that 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). 

DATED: May 11, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jayn.2522.f&r

Case 2:07-cv-02522-LKK -KJN Document 120 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2