Cofield v. Swarthout et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/29/2013 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED. 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

VINCENT E. COFIELD,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-2343 EFB P

G. SWARTHOUT, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15
16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
On March 5, 2013, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

20
21

The dismissal order explained the complaint’s deficiencies, gave plaintiff 30 days to file an

22

amended complaint correcting those deficiencies, and warned plaintiff that failure to file an

23

amended complaint would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed,

24

and despite being granted an extension of time, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or

25

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

26

////
1

1

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

3

Dated: April 29, 2013.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2