Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 99

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/2/2018. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

11
12
13

No. 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

C. MCCABE, et al.,

14

(Doc. No. 97)

Defendants.

15
16

On March 9, 2018, this court issued an order which noted, in part, that it appeared plaintiff

17

may have abandoned the prosecution of this action. (See Doc. No. 97 at 4–5.) The court ordered

18

plaintiff to file a written notice of his intent to proceed with this case within twenty-eight (28)

19

days of service of the court’s prior order. (Id.) No such notice has been filed by plaintiff, and the

20

time in which to file this notice has passed. Therefore, the court will dismiss this case in its

21

entirety, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

41(b); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (noting courts “may act sua sponte to

23

dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d

24

1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 41(b) permits dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute

25

or to comply with any order of court.”).

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated:

May 2, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
1

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
2