From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Querido v. A.T. Wall

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
Oct 7, 2011
C.A. No. 10-098M (D.R.I. Oct. 7, 2011)

Opinion

C.A. Nos. 10-098M and 10-099M.

October 7, 2011


ORDER


Before this Court is a Report Recommendation recommending that the two above-captioned cases be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule Gen. 205(d)(1) by notifying the Clerk of Court of his change address and for violating a Court order by failing to appear at two scheduled court conferences. The Plaintiff requested, and this Court granted him a 45 day extension — until October 4, 2011 — to respond to the Report and Recommendation. To date, no response has been filed. For this reason, and for the reasons contained in the Report and Recommendation, these two cases are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Querido v. A.T. Wall

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
Oct 7, 2011
C.A. No. 10-098M (D.R.I. Oct. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Querido v. A.T. Wall

Case Details

Full title:MALCOLM QUERIDO Plaintiff, v. A.T. WALL, et al Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

Date published: Oct 7, 2011

Citations

C.A. No. 10-098M (D.R.I. Oct. 7, 2011)