(PC) Green v. Gomez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARVON D. GREEN, No. 2:22-cv-0719 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 24, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On 19 November 26, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition 20 to the pending motion and was informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a 21 recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff has not 22 filed a response to the motion for summary judgment and the time for doing so has expired. 23 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 24 dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 28 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 3 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 4 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: March 14, 2025 Card ft 4 LA g. ae 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1 gree0719.46fr 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28