(PC) Hanna v. Ammerman ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN M. HANNA, No. 2:21-CV-2240-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 AMMERMAN, 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 dismiss, ECF 19 No. 18. 20 In their motion, Defendants argue that this action must be dismissed without leave 21 to amend because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the First 22 Amendment or Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. See id. After 23 Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion within the time provided under the 24 local rules, the Court issued a minute order on September 15, 2022, advising Plaintiff that failure 25 to file an opposition could be construed as consent to the relief requested pursuant to Eastern 26 District of California Local Rule 230(c), (l). See ECF No. 21. The minute order provided 27 Plaintiff an additional 30 days within which to file an opposition. See id. To date, Plaintiff has 28 not filed an opposition and the Court now construes Plaintiff’s failure to do so as consent to the 1 | relief requested in Defendants’ motion. 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Defendants’ unopposed 3 || motion to dismiss, ECF No. 18, be granted and that this action be dismissed without leave to 4 | amend. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 6 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 8 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 9 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 10 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 1] 12 | Dated: November 1, 2022 Ss..c0_, 13 DENNIS M. COTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28