(PC) Smith v. Salas et al, No. 2:2009cv02680 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/23/11 recommending that defendants' 03/10/11 motion for summary judgment be granted. Motion for Summary Judgment 29 referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Smith v. Salas et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LAFAYETTE ANTWONE SMITH, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-09-2680 FCD GGH P G. SALAS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed 18 March 10, 2011. 19 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendants’ motion. In the order directing 20 service filed November 17, 2009, the court stated that “[i]f plaintiff does not serve and file a 21 written opposition to the motion or a request to postpone consideration of defendants’ motion, 22 the court may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to defendant’s motion.” See 23 Local Rule 230 (l). Defendants’ notice of motion also directed plaintiff to Local Rule 230 for 24 information regarding summary judgment. 25 26 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 rule. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 2 (9th Cir. March 9, 1994), citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 3 However, when the local rule does not require, but merely permits the court to grant a motion for 4 summary judgment, the district court has discretion to determine whether noncompliance should 5 be deemed consent to the motion. Id. 6 In the instant case, plaintiff has been warned that his failure to oppose a motion 7 for summary judgment may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Based on 8 plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the court concludes that plaintiff has consented to 9 defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, the court finds that defendants’ 10 motion has merit. 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ March 10, 2011, motion for summary judgment be granted. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 15 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 18 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 19 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 20 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 DATED: May 23, 2011 22 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 23 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GGH:009/035 smit2680.46 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.
