Ashford v. City of Omaha et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 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 Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DEVIN ASHFORD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF OMAHA, et al.,
Defendants.

8:12CV166

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On March 25, 2013, this court
ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to complete
service of process. The court informed Plaintiff that if he did not respond by April 25, 2013,
this action would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. (Filing No. 15.)
The court’s March 25 order was returned to the court as “undeliverable” on April 8, 2013, and
no forwarding information was provided. (Filing No. 16.) Mail has been returned to this court
as “undeliverable” on three previous occasions in this matter. (Filing Nos. 5, 7, and 10.)
Plaintiff was previously warned that it is his obligation to keep the court informed of his
current address at all times. (See Filing No. 6.) Plaintiff has taken no action in this matter
since he sought to reopen it on July 13, 2012. (See Filing Nos. 11 and 12.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 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.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
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.