Saipher
(PC) Clark v. Saipher
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHRISTOPHER K. CLARK, Case No. 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO
MARSHALL SAIPHER, et al., COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS
16 On May 21, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 39. In the motion, defendants advised plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. (citing Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc)). Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Therefore, on July 8, 2024, I ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. ECF No. 41. Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause, and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, dismissal of the action is…