From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pringle v. Jose

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 30, 2021
21-cv-01348-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-01348-WHO (PR)

09-30-2021

MATHEW MALIK PRINGLE, Plaintiff, v. DINA JOSE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Mathew Malik Pringle's complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 6.) The order was resent to Pringle when he changed his address. There has been no response of any kind. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED (without prejudice) because plaintiff failed to prosecute this matter, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Because this dismissal is without prejudice, plaintiff may move to reopen the action. Any motion to reopen must be clearly titled on the first page as “MOTION TO REOPEN.”

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.*


Summaries of

Pringle v. Jose

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 30, 2021
21-cv-01348-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)
Case details for

Pringle v. Jose

Case Details

Full title:MATHEW MALIK PRINGLE, Plaintiff, v. DINA JOSE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Sep 30, 2021

Citations

21-cv-01348-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)