(PC) Ruiz v. Gates

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-CV-2518-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS S. GATES, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to revoke Plaintiff’s IFP status, see ECF No. 40.

20 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked and this action should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon pre-payment of the filing fees.

22 See ECF No. 7. After Plaintiff failed to file an opposition within the time specified by the Local Rules, the Court issued a minute order on June 29, 2022, advising Plaintiff that failure to oppose the motion could be construed as consent to the relief requested. See ECF No. 44. The minute order provided an additional 30 days within which to file an opposition. See id. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, and the Court now construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Respondents’ motion as consent to the relief requested. See Local Rule 230(c), (l).

28 / / / ] Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that: 2 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to revoke Plaintiffs in forma pauperis || status, ECF No. 40, be granted; 4 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon pre-payment of || filing fees therefor; and 6 3. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 45, be denied as moot.

7 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)(I). 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.

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

14 || Dated: September 2, 2022 Ss..c0_, 15 DENNIS M. COTA 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE