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.

Tyrone Ingram v. B. Hamkar

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


August 28, 2012

TYRONE INGRAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
B. HAMKAR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. Dckt. No. 5; see E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). On July 18, 2012, the court screened plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found service appropriate as to some defendants, but not all, and granted plaintiff thirty days to either return documents necessary to effect service of process on defendants against whom plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim, or to file an amended complaint. Dckt. No. 14. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not submitted the materials necessary for service, has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

20120828

© 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.