(PS) Wright v. Department of Defense et al, No. 2:2008cv01765 - Document 50 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER submitting 44 Dft's Motion to Dismiss and/or For Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/24/10. No further submissions in opposition to dft's motion will be considered in resolving dft's motion. The court will resolve dft's motion through separately filed findings and recommendations.(Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Wright v. Department of Defense et al Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NORVEL R. WRIGHT, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:08-cv-01765 GEB KJN PS v. 14 SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AGENCY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 ORDER / Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss and/or For Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 44) 18 came before the court for hearing on the undersigned’s law and motion calendar on July 8, 2010. 19 Assistant United States Attorney Bobbie J. Montoya appeared on behalf of defendant. Plaintiff, 20 who is proceeding without counsel, appeared on his own behalf. 21 At that time, the undersigned was prepared to rule on defendant’s motion. 22 Plaintiff’s opposition was fatally flawed, and his argument at the hearing cured none of the 23 deficiencies apparent from the briefs. However, following the lengthy hearing, and out of an 24 abundance of caution, the undersigned permitted plaintiff an additional opportunity to obtain 25 legal representation and file a supplemental or revised opposition to defendant’s motion. (See 26 Order, July 9, 2010, Dkt. No. 49.) Irrespective of plaintiff’s ability to retain legal counsel, the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 undersigned ordered that plaintiff’s supplemental or revised opposition to defendant’s motion, if 2 any, be filed on or before August 16, 2010. (Id. at 2.) The undersigned clearly stated that this 3 would be plaintiff’s “final opportunity to oppose defendant’s motion.” (Id.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 The court’s docket reveals that plaintiff failed to file any such supplemental or revised opposition. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss and/or For Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 44) is submitted on the briefs and appropriate portions of the record on file with the court. 2. No further submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion will be considered in resolving defendant’s motion. 3. The court will resolve defendant’s motion through separately filed findings and recommendations. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 24, 2010 14 15 16 17 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
