Michael McLaughlin v. Dwayne Deal ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL T. McLAUGHLIN, No. 21-15998
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01562-GMN-EJY
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DWAYNE DEAL, OMD administrator;
MONIQUE HUBBARD-PICKET, CCS III;
GENTRY; NETHANJAH CHILDERS; JIM
GIBBONS; HOWARD SKOLNIK; JAMES
DG. COX; JAMES DZURENDA; NANCY
FLORES; FRANK DREESEN; HOWELL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Michael T. McLaughlin appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal on the basis of its local rules.
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McLaughlin’s
action because McLaughlin failed to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss,
despite being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See D. Nev.
R. 7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in
response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for
attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”); Ghazali, 46
F.3d at 53-54 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for
failure to follow local rules).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15998