(PC) Alejandro v. Huizare

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AREVALO JESUS ALEJANDRO, No. 2:21-CV-0230-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HUIZARE, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19.

20 Defendants argue that this action, which was filed in 2021 and concerns events occurring in 2015, must be dismissed as barred by California’s four-year limitations period applicable in this case. The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion as consent to the relief requested. See Local Rule 230(c), (l). In this regard, the Court notes that Plaintiff was advised on the potential consequences of failing to oppose and was provided additional time to file an opposition. See ECF No. 23 (minute order). Notwithstanding this warning and additional time, Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

27 / / / / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Defendants’ unopposed | motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19, be granted.

3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.

7 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10 | Dated: June 7, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE