Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Martel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 29, 2010

DARRELL JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN MARTEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On March 29, 2010, plaintiff filed his consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned (docket #8). By order filed July 13, 2010, the court granted plaintiff twenty-eight days to file a second amended complaint. In the July 13th order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in his amended complaint. On July 29, 2010, plaintiff filed a response to the screening order that could be construed as a second amended complaint, but the court deemed it entirely insufficient and granted plaintiff an additional twenty-eight days to file a second amended complaint. The twenty-eight day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

For the reasons given in the July 13, 2010, order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

20101029

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.