From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dehoyos v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 8, 2010
No. CIV S-09-3243 DAD PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-3243 DAD PS.

February 8, 2010


ORDER


On January 29, 2010, plaintiff was ordered to show why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In a timely written response, plaintiff states that the necessary documents were provided to the U.S. Marshal. Although plaintiff states that a proof of service is enclosed, the docket does not reflect the filing of such a document. Plaintiff has not yet provided the court with a statement indicating the date on which the required documents were provided to the U.S. Marshal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff shall file the statement within five days.


Summaries of

Dehoyos v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 8, 2010
No. CIV S-09-3243 DAD PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Dehoyos v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ELLOY DEHOYOS for NICOLE L. RAO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE…

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

Date published: Feb 8, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-09-3243 DAD PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)