Rackley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 RAMIN SARIASLAN, No. 2:15-cv-2492-MCE-EFB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RONALD RACKLEY, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 20, 2020, defendants Polasik and Rackley filed a motion for summary judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). ECF No. 69. Despite an extension of time granted to plaintiff (ECF No. 72), the time for responding to the motion passed, and plaintiff failed to file an opposition or otherwise respond. On July 6, 2020, the court warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the motion could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 73. The court also provided plaintiff a 21-day extension of time to respond. Id. The time for…