(PC) Ruiz v. Gates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-CV-2518-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 S. GATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to revoke 19 Plaintiff’s IFP status, see ECF No. 40. 20 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should be revoked and 21 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 23 Rules, the Court issued a minute order on June 29, 2022, advising Plaintiff that failure to oppose 24 the motion could be construed as consent to the relief requested. See ECF No. 44. The minute 25 order provided an additional 30 days within which to file an opposition. See id. To date, Plaintiff 26 has not filed an opposition, and the Court now construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose 27 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 3 || status, ECF No. 40, be granted; 4 2. This action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling upon pre-payment of 5 || 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 8 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). Within 14 days 9 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 10 || 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. 12 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 14 || Dated: September 2, 2022 Ss..c0_, 15 DENNIS M. COTA 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28