Simmons-Davis v. Omaha Public Schools

Filing 7

ORDER -Plaintiff shall have until June 1, 2012, 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. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 6/1/2012:deadline for Plaintiff to show cause why service of process was notcompleted..) Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARGARET J. SIMMONS-DAVIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant.

8:11CV397

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Plaintiff filed this matter on November
23, 2011. (Filing No. 1.) After initial review of the Complaint, the court ordered that summons be
issued. (Filing No. 6.) The Clerk of the court sent a summons form and a USM-285 form to
Plaintiff on December 23, 2011. (Id.) However, Plaintiff has not returned the forms, and has not
completed service of process on Defendant. Indeed, Plaintiff has taken no action in this matter since
she filed her Complaint on November 23, 2011. (See Docket Sheet.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff shall have until June 1, 2012, 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.
2.
The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline with the
following text: June 1, 2012: deadline for Plaintiff to show cause why service of process was not
completed.
DATED this 4th day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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 W eb 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.