From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lock v. U.S. Attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jan 8, 2014
Civ. No. 6:13-cv-2069-MC (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2014)

Opinion

Civ. No. 6:13-cv-2069-MC

01-08-2014

DENNIS LOCK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, et al., Respondents.


OPINION AND ORDER

MCSHANE, Judge:

Petitioner, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus (#2) on November 19, 2013. Pet. Writ of Mandamus, ECF No. 2. On November 27, 2013, this Court issued an opinion denying petitioner's request. Order, Nov. 27, 2013, ECF No. 5. In consideration of petitioner's pro se status, this Court granted petitioner "until December 27, 2013 to file for appropriate relief, e.g., a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Id. Petitioner has not taken additional action since that time. Accordingly, because petitioner failed to comply with this Court's order (#5), this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Petitioner did file a separate action, 6:13-cv-2091-MC, that is also before this Court.

__________

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Lock v. U.S. Attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jan 8, 2014
Civ. No. 6:13-cv-2069-MC (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2014)
Case details for

Lock v. U.S. Attorney

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS LOCK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, et al., Respondents.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jan 8, 2014

Citations

Civ. No. 6:13-cv-2069-MC (D. Or. Jan. 8, 2014)