Bannister v. Omaha Police Dept et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff shall have until January 5, 2010, to show cause why this case shouldnot be dismissed. If Plaintiff does not respond, or if good cause is not shown, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without fu rther notice. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline with the following text: January 5, 2010: deadline for Plaintiff to show cause why service of process was not completed. Ordered by Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA HOWARD BANNISTER, Plaintiff, v. LNU, Police Chief, and OMAHA POLICE OFC'S, Unknown, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 8:09CV125

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On August 10, 2009, the court permitted Plaintiff's claims to proceed against Defendants Lnu and Unknown Officers. (Filing No. 11.) Plaintiff had 120 days, or until December 1, 2009, to complete service of process. (Id.) It is now December 16, 2009, and Plaintiff has not returned the completed summons forms to the Clerk of the court for service on Defendants. (See Docket Sheet.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff shall have until January 5, 2010, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. If Plaintiff does not respond, or if good cause is not shown, this action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice; and The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline with the following text: January 5, 2010: deadline for Plaintiff to show cause why service of process was not completed.

2.

DATED this 16th day of December, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/Laurie Smith Camp 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.