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.

Freitas v. Walker

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


November 9, 2010

DUSTIN FREITAS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES WALKER, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action.

On July 23, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to follow prior court orders and submit the required service documents in order for the United States Marshal to effect service on defendant DeLeon. Specifically, the court stated: on June 2, 2010, the court found service appropriate for defendant DeLeon. Plaintiff was provided with the documents necessary for the U.S. Marshal to effect service. Plaintiff was ordered to complete and return, within 30 days, the USM-285 form, the summons, and two copies of the complaint. Plaintiff was informed that this action cannot proceed further until Plaintiff complies. Plaintiff was again warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. To date, Plaintiff has not complied.

Therefore, Plaintiff will be required to show cause in writing, within 30 days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to submit the required service documents. Plaintiff is again warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the entire action for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See id.

To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the prior court order nor responded to the order to show cause. The court therefore finds it is appropriate to dismiss this action for Plaintiff's lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

20101109

© 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.