Martinez v. Alameda County et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 03/28/2017. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 HENRY MARTINEZ, v. 9 ALAMEDA COUNTY and DOES 1–50, 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California ORDER DISMISSING CASE Plaintiff, 7 8 No. 15-cv-5342-CRB Defendants. / 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff failed to appear for a case management conference. See CMC (dkt. 16). On March 10, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, as nothing had been filed since. See OSC (dkt. 17). Plaintiff did not respond within that time period. The Court therefore DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Semtek Intern. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001). 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 28, 2017 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?