From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harden v. Hicks

United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Mar 8, 2007
8:06cv768 (D. Neb. Mar. 8, 2007)

Opinion

8:06cv768.

March 8, 2007


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


In filing no. 6, I reviewed the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and I gave the plaintiff a deadline to amend his complaint and provide additional details so that this action could proceed. When it came to the court's attention that the plaintiff, a prisoner, was refusing to accept mail from the court, Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett issued an Order (filing no. 8) directing the Clerk of Court to send another copy of filing no. 6 to the plaintiff with the following message on the outside of the envelope: "ORDERS FROM THE COURT ENCLOSED. FAILURE TO RESPOND AS ORDERED MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF CASE NO. 8:06cv768." The deadline set in filing no. 6 has now expired by several weeks, and the plaintiff has taken no action in response to filing no. 6 or 8. Therefore, the plaintiff's complaint and this action are dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute this case with diligence. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

NECivR 41.1 states in pertinent part: "At any time when it appears that any action is not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence the court may dismiss it for lack of prosecution."

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harden v. Hicks

United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Mar 8, 2007
8:06cv768 (D. Neb. Mar. 8, 2007)
Case details for

Harden v. Hicks

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HARDEN, Plaintiff, v. CLAY HICKS, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Nebraska

Date published: Mar 8, 2007

Citations

8:06cv768 (D. Neb. Mar. 8, 2007)