Wright v. Patterson et al

Filing 15

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 22, 2013. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

CHARLES WRIGHT,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-03487 WHA

v.
CHARLES PATTERSON, et al.,

13

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Defendants.
/

14
15

In this property damage action involving a United States Postal Service vehicle,

16

defendants moved to dismiss on August 5. Upon reassignment to the undersigned judge, the

17

hearing on the motion was re-noticed for November 7. As stated in the order reassigning the

18

action, however, the “[b]riefing schedules remain unchanged” (Dkt. No. 10). Pro se plaintiff

19

Charles Wright failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by the August 19

20

deadline. A subsequent order to show cause (Dkt. No. 14) ordered plaintiff to show cause by

21

October 15 why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. Mr. Wright failed to respond to the

22

show cause order. This order finds that Mr. Wright has failed to prosecute this action.

23

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is accordingly GRANTED. Judgment will be entered in a separate

24

order.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: October 22, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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