From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mcginnis v. Jones

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 15, 2021
20-cv-01695-SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2021)

Opinion

20-cv-01695-SI (pr)

12-15-2021

MARCUS G. MCGINNIS, Plaintiff, v. EARL JONES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 23

SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The docket sheet for this action shows that plaintiff lost interest in it after he was released on parole in July of 2020.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs lawsuit for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 23. Plaintiff filed no opposition or non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. In fact, plaintiff has not filed anything in this action since he filed a letter dated April 12, 2020. Docket No. 8.

The Court has read and considered defendants' motion and finds that good cause exists to grant the motion. In light of plaintiffs failure to comply with the order to keep the court informed of his current address (Docket No. 11 at 3), plaintiff s failure to provide discovery responses, appear at deposition, or communicate with defense counsel, and plaintiffs failure to file anything in more than one year indicating any interest in the action, defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED. This action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mcginnis v. Jones

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 15, 2021
20-cv-01695-SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Mcginnis v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS G. MCGINNIS, Plaintiff, v. EARL JONES, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 15, 2021

Citations

20-cv-01695-SI (pr) (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2021)