Lane v. Adams

Filing 15

Order Dismissing Case - Plaintiffs failed to comply with this court's order of March 8, 2017 [D.E. 14]. In that order, the court warned plaintiffs that "failure to respond to this order could result in sanctions, up to and including dismiss al." Cf. Hathcock v. Navistar lnt'l Transp. Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 40-41 (4th Cir. 1995). In light of plaintiffs' failure to comply, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 4/3/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-107-D

-;;

RICHARD LANE d/b/a
SSAUTOCHROME, INC., d/b/a
XS-POWER, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRUCE LEE ADAMS, JR.,
d/b/a FTG MOTORSPORTS,
FOR THE GUSTO MOTORSPORTS,
and FTG AUCTIONS PLUS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
):
)

ORDER

Plaintiffs failed to comply with this court's order of March 8, 2017 [D.E. 14]. In that order,
the court warned plaintiffs that "failure to respond to this order could result in sanctions, up to and
including dismissal." Cf. Hathcock v. Navistar lnt'l Transp. Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 40-41 (4th Cir.
1995).

In light of plaintiffs' failure to comply, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED. This L

day of April2017.