From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bigone v. Pomazal

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 23, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1947 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-1947 GGH P.

February 23, 2011


ORDER


On August 11, 2000, plaintiff filed his consent to the jurisdiction of the undersigned (docket #5). By order filed October 29, 2010, plaintiff's first amended complaint was dismissed and sixty days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. On December 9, 2010, plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint. Thirty days from that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second 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).

DATED: February 23, 2011


Summaries of

Bigone v. Pomazal

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 23, 2011
No. CIV S-10-1947 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2011)
Case details for

Bigone v. Pomazal

Case Details

Full title:ERIC BIGONE, Plaintiff, v. A. POMAZAL, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 23, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-1947 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2011)