Polk v. Gray

Full title: SHERMAN MONROE POLK, Plaintiff, v. DIANE GRAY, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2015

2:15-cv-0471 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2015)

Opinion

SHERMAN MONROE POLK, Plaintiff, v. DIANE GRAY, et al., Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-0471 CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 14, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         By order filed July 13, 2015, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and he was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was informed that failure to file an amended complaint would result in the dismissal of this action. (Id.) On August 17, 2015, plaintiff was granted a forty-five day extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) On September 24, 2015, plaintiff filed various documents labeled "Exhibits, " but did not file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 18; see ECF No. 13 at 6.)

         Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 3.) As he has failed to timely file an amended complaint, the undersigned will dismiss this action without prejudice.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).