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.

Rudolfo Ortega, Jr v. Aramark

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


May 22, 2012

RUDOLFO ORTEGA, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARAMARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). By order filed March 30, 2012, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

orte3391.fta

20120522

© 1992-2012 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.