Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01238-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Greg Acosta
Plaintiff
S. Suryadevara
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JDDL 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Greg Acosta, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

S. Suryadevara, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-08-1238-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant ‘s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 40).

The motion was filed on May 5, 2010, along with notices of the motion and certificates of

service. As of June 17, 2010, Plaintiff has not filed a Response, nor has he sought an

extension of time to do so.

The Court may, in its discretion, treat Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment as a consent to the granting of that motion without further

notice, and judgment may be entered dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56; see Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per

curiam).

The Court will give Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this Order to file a Response

to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file and serve a Response to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 40) on or before July 19, 2010. Should

Case 1:08-cv-01238-GMS Document 49 Filed 06/21/10 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

27

28

JDDL - 2 -

Plaintiff fail to comply, the Court may consider such failure to respond as consent to the

granting of the motion. This could result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim.

DATED this 18th day of June, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-01238-GMS Document 49 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2