(PC) Colon v. Miranda et al, No. 2:2011cv02407 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 07/09/12 ORDERING that a district judge be assigned to this case. U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that defendants' motions to dismiss 26 , 31 be granted; and this action be dismissed. MOTIONS 26 and 31 referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Colon v. Miranda et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FELIX COLON, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-2407 GGH P vs. R. MIRANDA, et al., 14 ORDER & Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action brought 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Several defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 8, 2012.1 18 Plaintiff was granted a 30 day extension to file an opposition on April 11, 2012, however that 19 time has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise communicated with the 20 court. On June 6, 2012, the undersigned ordered that plaintiff file an opposition to the motions to 21 dismiss within 14 days or else it would be recommended that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff 22 has still not communicated with the court. 23 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 24 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 25 the granting of the motion . . . .” On January 4, 2012, plaintiff was advised of the requirements 26 1 Another defendant was served on April 17, 2012, and also moved to dismiss this action on April 24, 2012, on the same grounds as the earlier filed motion. Dockets.Justia.com 1 for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss and that failure to oppose such a motion may be 2 deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 3 Accordingly, plaintiff’s failure to oppose should be deemed a waiver of 4 opposition to the granting of the motions and in the alternative the undersigned finds that the 5 motions have merit. 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case. 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 9 1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 26, 31) be granted; and 10 2. This action be dismissed. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 13 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 16 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 17 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 18 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 DATED: July 9, 2012 20 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 GGH:AB 22 23 24 25 26 colo2407.mtd

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.