Bertholf

(PC) Mack v. Bertholf

Bad Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 20202:18-cv-00636California338 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 QUINCY MACK, No. 2:18-cv-0636 MCE CKD P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS K. BERTHOLF, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 28, 2019, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On December 9, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion within thirty days. In the same order, plaintiff was informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.