Hale v. Ness

Full title: JAMES HALE, Plaintiff, v. SGT. NESS, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jun 25, 2013

2:13-cv-0630 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2013)

Opinion

JAMES HALE, Plaintiff, v. SGT. NESS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-0630 KJN P United States District Court, E.D. California. June 25, 2013

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). By order filed May 13, 2013, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and 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 without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).