Cogill v. Houston et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Cogill's claims against Newman are dismissed without prejudice because Cogill failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with the 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)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JESSE COGILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANNET NEWMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:09CV209

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Plaintiff Jesse Cogill (“Cogill”) has been
given multiple opportunities to properly serve Defendant Jannet Newman (“Newman”), the only
remaining Defendant. (See Filing Nos. 12, 52, and 81.) Recently, Cogill once again attempted to
serve Newman, but summons was returned unexecuted on January 31, 2011. (Filing No. 85.) The
record reflects that Cogill was notified by the Clerk of the court that summons was returned
unexecuted by notice mailed to him on January 31, 2011, indicating that summons had been
“returned unexecuted” because Newman was “not at [the] address listed.” (See Text Entry Dated
January 31, 2011). To date, Cogill has made no additional attempt to complete service of process
on Newman.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Cogill’s claims against Newman are dismissed without prejudice because Cogill
failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with the court’s orders.
2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or W eb 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.