Galindo v. Fulk et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: This action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. (terminating case) (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DANIEL BRIBIESCA GALINDO,
Plaintiff,

NICK FULK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 13-494-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
On November 13, 2013, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and directed him to pay an initial partial filing fee within twenty (20) days
[Docket No. 6]. On December 2, 2013, and December 3, 2013, mail from the court,
including the order granting in forma pauperis status, was returned with notations that
plaintiff no longer was at that address [Docket Nos. 8 and 9].
Plaintiff has failed to advise the court of his current address, as required by Local
Civil Rule 5.5(a). Therefore, this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. See United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 854-56 (10th
Cir. 2005) (dismissing appeal sua sponte for failure to prosecute because appellant
disappeared and failed to meet court deadlines).
ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of December 2013.

Dated this 13th day of December, 2013.
J4h4i0