From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeHoog v. Lacy

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jun 21, 2024
8:24-cv-00638-FWS-E (C.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2024)

Opinion

8:24-cv-00638-FWS-E

06-21-2024

Kevin M. DeHoog, Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) v. Theo Lacy, Defendant(s)/Respondent(s).


ORDER OF DISMISSAL OR REMAND

The Court previously received from [x] Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) [ ] Defendant(s)/Respondent(s):

[ ] an IFP Request with no accompanying Complaint/Petition/Notice of Removal.
[x] a Complaint/Petition/Notice of Removal without an accompanying IFP Request or payment or the filing fees.
[ ] a Complaint/Petition/Notice of Removal with a partial filing fee payment for an amount less than the full fee.

The Court sent a warning letter to [x] Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) [ ] Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) advising that failure to correct this deficiency within THIRTY DAYS from the date of the warning letter would result in dismissal or remand of this case. More than THIRTY DAYS have now passed, and the deficiency has not been corrected.

Accordingly, this case is HEREBY ORDERED

H DISMISSED without prejudice.

[ ] REMANDED to the ___.


Summaries of

DeHoog v. Lacy

United States District Court, Central District of California
Jun 21, 2024
8:24-cv-00638-FWS-E (C.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2024)
Case details for

DeHoog v. Lacy

Case Details

Full title:Kevin M. DeHoog, Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s) v. Theo Lacy…

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jun 21, 2024

Citations

8:24-cv-00638-FWS-E (C.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2024)