White v. County of Sacramento, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/20/2014 DISMISSING this action without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LLOYD WHITE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1293 DAD P

v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state inmate proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

17
18

has consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

19

By order filed August 13, 2014, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a

20

claim with plaintiff being granted thirty days’ leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was

21

apprised that failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed could result in an order

22

that his case be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Order (Doc. No. 11) at

23

5.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or

24

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

2

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

3

Dated: October 20, 2014

4
5
hm/whit1293.fta

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2