From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Froemel v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 20, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-03207-DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-03207-DAD P

07-20-2012

ROCKY D. FROEMEL, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Doc. No. 5. By order filed June 6, 2012, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and twenty-eight days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The twenty-eight day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

______________

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAD:4
froe3207.fta


Summaries of

Froemel v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 20, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-03207-DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2012)
Case details for

Froemel v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:ROCKY D. FROEMEL, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 20, 2012

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-03207-DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2012)