Case Information
*1 Case 2:06-cv-01404-MHM Document 13 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 2 WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kevin Glass, ) No. CIV 06-1404-PHX-MHM
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Plaintiff, ORDER
vs.
Intel Corporation,
Defendant.
On May 30, 2006 Plaintiff Kevin Glass ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed the instant Complaint against Defendant Intel Corporation (Defendant). Plaintiff asserts clams of employment discrimination and retaliation. (Dkt.#1). On December 7, 2006, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as Plaintiff had not timely effectuated service of process. The Court conducted a hearing on January 8, 2007, at which time Plaintiff informed the Court that he had effectuated service of process upon the Defendant on January 2, 2007. (Dkt.#7). On January 22, 2007, Defendant filed the instant Motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff's service of process was insufficient and untimely. (Dkt.#9). The Plaintiff, however, has yet to respond to the instant Motion to dismiss and the time to respond has long past. LRCiv. 7.2(c) ("[t]he opposing party shall ... have ten (10) days after service in a civil ... case within which to serve and file a responsive memorandum."). Clearly, the *2 Case 2:06-cv-01404-MHM Document 13 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 2 1 ten day period to respond has long expired. Such failure to respond raises the applicability 2 LRCiv.7.2(i), which provides in pertinent part:
3 If a motion does not conform in all substantial respects with the requirements of this
Local Rule, or if the unrepresented party or counsel does not serve and file the required 4 answering memoranda, ... such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial
or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.
5
As such, pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(i), the Court may deem Plaintiff's failure to respond a 6
consent to the granting of the Defendant's motion to dimiss. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 7 52, 53-54 (9 th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court did not err in summarily granting the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to local rule where the pro se plaintiff had time to respond to the motion but failed to do so). The Court also may dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(b) Fed.R.Civ.P. if Plaintiff fails to prosecute the action or comply with the rules or any Court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9 th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court did not err in dismissing a pro se plaintiff's action for failure to comply with the court's order); see also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9 th Cir. 1986) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.").
In light of the above authority regarding Plaintiff's failure to respond, the Court will direct Plaintiff to file a response to the Defendant's Motion to dismiss by May 16, 2007. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of his claims and action.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED directing Plaintiff to file any response to the Defendant's Motion to dismiss by May 16, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims and action without prejudice and without further notice if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Court's order with respect to the May 16, 2007 deadline.
DATED this 2 nd day of May, 2007.
- 2 -