Anderson v. Omaha Police Department et al

Filing 10

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)(JAE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA W A R R E N ANDERSON JR., Plaintiff, v. C R A IG WYLIE, CHRIS DUFFEK, and BAGG ETT, D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8 :1 0 C V 1 3

M EM ORANDUM AND ORDER

T his matter is before the court on its own motion. On March 16, 2010, the court entered a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff until April 16, 2010, to amend his Complaint and clearly state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendants. (Filing No. 9 at C M /E C F p. 6.) In doing so, the court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2010, his claims against Defendants would be dismissed without further notice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint in accordance with the court's March 16, 2010, Memorandum an d Order. (See Docket Sheet.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. T h is matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with this court's orders. 2. O rde r. DATED this 26th day of April, 2010. B Y THE COURT: A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and

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.