Drogin v. Yahoo

Filing 8

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge James Ware on July 13, 2009. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dartton A. Drogin, v. Yahoo, Defendant. / Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 09-01368 JW ORDER OF DISMISSAL United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed this action. (See Docket Item No. 1.) On June 5, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and in the same Order, dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. (See Docket Item No. 6.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, and ordered him to file an amended Complaint on or before June 25, 2009. (Id..) On July 1, 2009, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear on July 13, 2009 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (See Docket Item No. 7.) The Court gave Plaintiff until July 9, 2009 to file a certification explaining why this case should not be dismissed. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed such a certificate. On July 13, 2009, the Court conducted a hearing on its order to show cause. Plaintiff failed to attend the hearing. Accordingly, Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk shall close this file. Dated: July 13, 2009 JAMES WARE United States District Judge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Dartton A Drogin 34 Pheasant Ridge Drive Londonville, NY 12211 Dated: July 13, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?