Daugherty v. City of Lincoln et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with this court's orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

-

P

R

S

E

D

a

u

g

h

e

r

t

y

v

.

C

iD

to

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ARRMON H. DAUGHERTY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF LINCOLN, LINCOLN POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, ARMSTRONG, Sgt 1257, ) DENZIN, Ofc 1622, HOSE, Ofc 1606, ) SMITH, Ofc 826, and VIGIL, Ofc 1570, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 4:10CV3111

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On September 16, 2010, the court entered a Memorandum and Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than October 17, 2010. (Filing No. 10.) The court warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint by that deadline would result in the dismissal of this matter without further notice. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address on October 26, 2010 (filing no. 15), but has not filed an amended complaint or any other response to the court's September 16, 2010, Memorandum and Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with this court's orders. 2. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. DATED this 9th day of November, 2010. BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge

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