(PC) Alejandro v. Huizare ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AREVALO JESUS ALEJANDRO, No. 2:21-CV-0230-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 HUIZARE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19 19. 20 Defendants argue that this action, which was filed in 2021 and concerns events 21 occurring in 2015, must be dismissed as barred by California’s four-year limitations period 22 applicable in this case. The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion as consent to 23 the relief requested. See Local Rule 230(c), (l). In this regard, the Court notes that Plaintiff was 24 advised on the potential consequences of failing to oppose and was provided additional time to 25 file an opposition. See ECF No. 23 (minute order). Notwithstanding this warning and additional 26 time, Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Defendants’ unopposed 2 | motion to dismiss, ECF No. 19, be granted. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days 5 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 6 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 7 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 8 | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 10 | Dated: June 7, 2022 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28