Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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 Before the court is Defendant Cox's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #70) and Defendant Robert Sesma's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #69). By order entered May 15, 2005 (doc. #73), Magistrate Judge Sitver extended plaintiff's time to respond to both these motions until July 21, 2005. The same order advised plaintiff as required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962 (9th Cir. 1998), of these obligations to respond to the motions and of the consequences of failure to timely respond. No response to either motion has been filed. Under LRCiv 7.2(i), "If the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering memorandum . . . 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." Nevertheless, the court has viewed both motions for summary judgment and decides both of them on their merits. Both motions demonstrate, without rebuttal, that neither defendant Cox nor vs. Brian Cox, et al., Defendants. Kerry Allynn Chase, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 04-056 PHX NVW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

defendant Sesma violated any legal right of the plaintiff and that both would be entitled to qualified immunity if they did.
Document 78 Filed 08/09/2005 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00056-NVW-LOA

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 THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Cox's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #70) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Robert Sesma's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #69) is granted. DATED this 5th day of August, 2005.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00056-NVW-LOA Document 78 Filed 08/09/2005 Page 2 of 2