Bush v. Bailey et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's directive, therefore, Plaintiff's action is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment shall be entered by separate document. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CHARLIE B. BUSH JR., Plaintiff, v. MELANIE BAILEY, Counsler, and MICHAEL THURBER, Director of Lancaster County Jail, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:09CV3141

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On November 5, 2009, the court entered an order that, among other things, directed Plaintiff to return two completed summons and USM-285 forms as soon as possible. (Filing No. 12 at CM/ECF p. 2.) The court informed Plaintiff that service of process could not occur in the absence of the forms. Further, the court informed Plaintiff that he was required to obtain service of process on Defendants by March 4, 2010. (Id.) On March 18, 2010, the court entered an order that gave Plaintiff until April 19, 2010, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed against Defendants due to Plaintiff's failure to serve summons. (Filing No. 21.) Plaintiff has not responded to the court's order in any way. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's directive, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's action is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment shall be entered by separate document. DATED this 27th day of April, 2010. BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.