Hart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT, No. 2:22-cv-1496 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. HART, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 22, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion. 19 Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written 20 opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to 21 the granting of the motion . . . .” Id. On August 28, 2023, plaintiff was advised of the 22 requirements for filing an opposition to a motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be 23 deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 30 at 6-7, 9.) (citing see Rand v. 24 Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 25 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). On April 22, 2024, defendants also provided plaintiff with the notice 26 required under Rand, 154 F.3d at…