Court Opinion

ID: 9374325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:47.519728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:50.857766
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL T. McLAUGHLIN,                          No. 21-15998

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01562-GMN-EJY

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DWAYNE DEAL, OMD administrator;
MONIQUE HUBBARD-PICKET, CCS III;
GENTRY; NETHANJAH CHILDERS; JIM
GIBBONS; HOWARD SKOLNIK; JAMES
DG. COX; JAMES DZURENDA; NANCY
FLORES; FRANK DREESEN; HOWELL,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                   Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Nevada state prisoner Michael T. McLaughlin appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal on the basis of its local rules.

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McLaughlin’s

action because McLaughlin failed to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss,

despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See D. Nev.

R. 7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in

response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for

attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”); Ghazali, 46

F.3d at 53-54 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for

failure to follow local rules).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     21-15998