United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Gene Willison, Defendant-appellant,andseahawk Mining, Inc., Defendant, 142 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Gene Willison appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and order enjoining Willison from conducting mining operations without an approved plan of operations. The district court also held Willison and defendant Seahawk Mining, Inc. jointly liable for $14,040 in reclamation costs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

Willison failed to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Montana District Local Rule 220-1(i), the district court construed Willison's failure to file opposition papers as consent to summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the United States. Although a district court may not grant summary judgment simply because the nonmoving party does not file an opposition, a district court may grant summary judgment when the moving papers are sufficient on their face and show that no genuine issues of material fact exist. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993).

In this case, the United States established that Willison's mining operations exceeded five acres and he did not have an approved plan of operations on file. See 43 C.F.R. § 3809.1-4(a). The United States also established that the cost of reclaiming the property would amount to $14,040. See 43 C.F.R. § 3809.3-2(a) (stating that an operator shall be responsible for reclamation).

Because the local rule did not require the district court to grant summary judgment and because the moving papers established the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, see Henry, 983 F.2d at 950, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the United States, see Bagdadi, 84 F.3d at 1197, and enjoined Willison from further mining activity, see 43 C.F.R. § 3809.3-2(c). Willison's argument that the district court failed to consider his reclamation efforts lacks merit because Willison submitted no supporting evidence.

AFFIRMED.