From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diaz v. McCue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 29, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-2274 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-2274 EFB P

04-29-2013

MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. McCUE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

On March 12, 2013, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The dismissal order explained the complaint's deficiencies, gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint correcting those deficiencies, and warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed, and despite being granted an extension of time, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

____________________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Diaz v. McCue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 29, 2013
No. 2:11-cv-2274 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013)
Case details for

Diaz v. McCue

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ, Plaintiff, v. McCUE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 29, 2013

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-2274 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013)