Free Order on Motion to Dismiss Case/Lack of Prosecution - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Jesse Plath, et al.,, 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 On August 14, 2006, D efendants filed a M otion To Dismiss For Failure To 18 Prosecute. (Dkt. 104). Plaintiff did not respond. 19 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 41.1 states that a case may be dismissed by the Court 20 for want of prosecution if there have been no proceedings for six months. 21 proceedings in this case were on February 27, 2006 ­ over seven mont hs ago. (Dkt. 102). 22 Further, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that failure to file a required answering 23 memoranda may be deemed a consent to the "granting of the motion and the Court may 24 dispose of the motion summarily." The Court will construe Plaintiff's failure to respond to 25 the Defendants' M otion as consent to grant the M otion. 26 Accordingly, 27 // 28 T he las t vs. Leon Smith, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 02-2492-PHX-EHC ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:02-cv-02492-EHC

Document 105

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' M otion T o Dismiss For Failure To Prosecute is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that t his cas e is DIS MIS S ED and that Judgment be entered accordingly. DATED this 6th day of October, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-02492-EHC

Document 105

-2Filed 10/10/2006

Page 2 of 2