Valentine v. Brown, et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this case is dismissed without prejudicebecause Valentine failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with a court order. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANE DOE DEFENDANTS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV261

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for case management. On November 6, 2015,
the court ordered Plaintiff Veronica Valentine to, within 30 days, “take reasonable
steps to identify the two Jane Doe Defendants who subjected her to a body cavity
search and notify the court of their names, after which the court [would] send
Valentine the documents necessary to initiate service of process.” (Filing No. 7.) The
court warned Valentine that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this case
without prejudice and without further notice. In addition, the court advised Valentine
that she could request an extension of time in which to identify the Jane Does if
additional time was needed.
To date, Valentine has not notified the court of the names of the Jane Doe
Defendants, she has not requested an extension of time in which to identify the Jane
Doe Defendants, and she has taken no further action in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This case is dismissed without prejudice
because Valentine failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with a court
order.

DATED this 30th day of December, 2015.
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.
2