Bauermeister v. State of Wisconsin, et al

Filing 7

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 Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL BAUERMEISTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, SUAB
HMONG BROADCASTING, and
HMONG T.V., LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV343

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On December 13, 2011, the
court conducted an initial review of the Complaint in this matter and concluded that
it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Filing No. 6.) However,
the court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (Id. at CM/ECF
pp. 3-4.) In doing so, the court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to file an amended
complaint by January 13, 2012, this matter would be dismissed without further notice.
(Id.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the court’s deadline. (See
Docket Sheet.)
Accordingly,
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 24 th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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.
2