Papenhausen v. Hollister et al

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/1/2012 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SCOTT PAPENHAUSEN,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2: 12-cv-0344 DAD P

DAVID HOLLISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

By order filed July 6, 2012, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was

17

given thirty days leave to file an amended complaint.1 Thereafter, plaintiff sought and received

18

an extension of time until September 7, 2012 to file an amended complaint. Nonetheless, to date,

19

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

20

/////

21

/////

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25
1

26

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(e). (Doc. No. 4.)
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without

2

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

3

DATED: October 1, 2012.

4
5
6

DAD:dpw
pape0344.fta

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2