(PC) Boone v. Ruby

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NICKY BOONE, No. 2:20-cv-02100 WBS DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RUBY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On April 4, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not timely oppose the motion. By order filed on May 8, 2024, plaintiff was granted an extension of time of 30 additional days from the date of the order to file opposition. Although court records reflect plaintiff was properly served with notice of the motion and the order granting an extension of time to file opposition at plaintiff’s address of record, plaintiff has filed no opposition, 22 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion....” Further, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

27 In the order filed on May 8, 2024, plaintiff was advised of the above requirements for filing opposition under the Local Rules and was cautioned that failure to comply with the Local | Rules might result in the imposition of sanctions. In addition, plaintiff was cautioned that failure | to file opposition would be deemed consent to have the action dismissed for lack of prosecution | and would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

4 Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion for summary judgment and has not responded to || the order dated May 8, 2024. “Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for | dismissal.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Pro se litigants are bound by the | rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, | 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986).

9 Although public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, plaintiffs failure to | oppose the pending motion has prejudiced the defendants and precluded the court from deciding | the case on the merits. Under the present circumstances, the court finds no suitable alternative to | dismissal of this action.

13 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be | dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

15 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)(1). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s | Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to objections shall be filed and served within 14 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive | the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22 | Dated: July 9, 2024 | pres ORAH BARNES boon2100.nooppo.fr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE