From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Hall

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 25, 2008
CV. 07-1333-HU (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2008)

Opinion

CV. 07-1333-HU.

March 25, 2008


ORDER


On November 30, 2007, Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel issued an order granting plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 18, 2007, the order mailed to plaintiff was returned to the court for lack of a current address.

On February 29, 2008, Judge Hubel issued an order granting defendants' motion for extension of time. On March 10, 2008, the order mailed to plaintiff was returned to the court for lack of a current address.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.10, a party not represented by counsel has a continuing responsibility to notify the clerk's office whenever they change their mailing address or telephone number. When mail from the court to a party cannot be delivered due to the lack of a current address, and the failure continues for sixty (60) days, the court may dismiss the action. Local Rule 83.12.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (#15) is GRANTED, and defendants' motion for extension of time to file a responsive pleading (#17) is DENIED AS MOOT. This proceeding is DISMISSED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wright v. Hall

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 25, 2008
CV. 07-1333-HU (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2008)
Case details for

Wright v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM LEROY WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. GUY HALL, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 25, 2008

Citations

CV. 07-1333-HU (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2008)