Hawes v. Marin County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 12/19/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2013)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
4
5

TERRY RAY HAWES,

No. C 13-1711 JCS (PR)

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

v.
MARIN COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, and
ROBERT DOYLE,
Defendants.

11

/

12
13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint by

14

the deadline. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to respond

15

to the Court’s order, and for failure to prosecute, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).1 Because this

16

dismissal is without prejudice, plaintiff may move to reopen the action. Any such motion

17

must contain an amended complaint that complies in all respects with the instructions in the

18

order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor

19

of defendants, and close the file.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: December 19, 2013
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The magistrate, then, has jurisdiction
to issue this order, even though defendants have not been served or consented to magistrate jurisdiction.
See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction
to dismiss prison inmate’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants
because defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties).

28
No. C 13-1711 JCS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL