(PC) Franks v. Giddings ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOM M. FRANKS, No. 2:17-cv-01056-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. CLARK KELSO, 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 June 9, 2022 defendant Giddings filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF 19 No. 106. On August 17, 2022 plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non- 20 opposition to the pending motion within thirty days. ECF No. 110. In the same order, plaintiff 21 was informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a recommendation that this action 22 be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The thirty day period has now expired, and 23 plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 24 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 25 dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 3 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 4 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 5 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: October 24, 2022 □□ / del a 7 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 12/fran1056.46fr 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28