Eagle Boy v. Danaher et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - 1. Plaintiffs Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute diligently and for failure to comply with the courts orders. 2. Plaintiff remains responsible for the payment of the filing fee in accordance with the courts previous Memorandum and Orders.3. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with thisMemorandum and Order.Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(PCV, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CHARLES EAGLE BOY, Plaintiff, v. DAN DANAHER, PA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:08CV3090
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on its own motion. On August 19, 2008, the court conducted an initial review of the Complaint and permitted Plaintiff's claims to proceed to service. (Filing No. 8.) Plaintiff had 120 days, or until December 17, 2008, to complete service of process. (Id.) Plaintiff has never returned a completed summons form to the Clerk of the court for service on Defendants, and no Defendant has been served with summons. (See Docket Sheet.) On January 23, 2009, Plaintiff was given until February 23, 2009, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to serve Defendants. (Filing No. 9.) Plaintiff has not responded to the court's previous Memorandum and Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint (filing no. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute diligently and for failure to comply with the court's orders. 2. Plaintiff remains responsible for the payment of the filing fee in accordance with the court's previous Memorandum and Orders. 3. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. March 23, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge
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?