Simmons v. Connealy et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff, Robin Simmons, failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with my orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this memorandum and order. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBIN SIMMONS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MATTHEW J. CONNEALY, LAW )
OFFICE OF CRARY & HUFF, IDA )
HINGST, KEITH KOEPKE, PETOY )
DOHRMAN, and WILLIAM
)
KOEPKE,
)
)
Defendants.
)

8:12CV365

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On December 11, 2012, an
initial review was conducted of the Complaint filed by the plaintiff, Robin Simmons
(“Simmons”), and I found that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. (Filing No. 6.) I gave Simmons an opportunity to amend her
complaint, but warned Simmons that if she failed to amend the complaint by
December 26, 2012, her claims would “be dismissed without further notice for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.) Simmons
has failed to file an amended complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
This matter is dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff, Robin
Simmons, failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with my
orders.

2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
memorandum and order.
Dated January 14, 2013.
BY THE COURT

_______________________________________
Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior 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