From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez v. Potter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 4, 2012
No. CIV S-11-1004 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-1004 DAD P

01-04-2012

ROSENDO ROBERT RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. JOHN POTTER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is an inmate at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. He is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Doc. No. 4. By order filed November 18, 2011, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

The court notes that plaintiff filed a new in forma pauperis application and trust account statement with this court on December 23, 2011. However, in that filing plaintiff made no mention about whether he intended to file an amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

_________

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAD:4
ram1004.fta


Summaries of

Ramirez v. Potter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 4, 2012
No. CIV S-11-1004 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Ramirez v. Potter

Case Details

Full title:ROSENDO ROBERT RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. JOHN POTTER, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jan 4, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-1004 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012)