Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01142/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01142-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenn County Jail
Defendant
Dale Allen Sabin
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE ALLEN SABIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1142 FCD GGH P

vs.

GLENN COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed

April 19, 2006.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendants’ motion. In the order directing

service filed August 30, 2005, the court stated that “[i]f plaintiff does not serve and file a written

opposition to the motion or a request to postpone consideration of defendants’ motion, the court

may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to defendant’s motion.” See Local Rule

78-230 (m). Defendants’ notice of motion also directed plaintiff to Local Rule 78-230 for

information regarding summary judgment.

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

Case 2:05-cv-01142-FCD-GGH Document 40 Filed 07/28/06 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

rule. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652

(9th Cir. March 9, 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 warned that his failure to oppose a motion

for summary judgment may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 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’ April 19, 2006,

motion for summary judgment be granted.

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 twenty

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 may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 7/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

sabi1142.46

Case 2:05-cv-01142-FCD-GGH Document 40 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2