From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wynn v. Peterson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 30, 2021
2:20-cv-02342 JAM AC PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-02342 JAM AC PS

09-30-2021

JESSE MICHEL WYNN, Plaintiff, v. PETERSON, Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 27, 2021, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the complaint is time barred. ECF 28-1. Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 15, 2021, why his failure to respond to the pending motion should not result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The filing of an opposition or statement of non-opposition within this time frame will serve as cause and will discharge this order. If plaintiff fails to respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this case pursuant to Local Civil Rule 110.


Summaries of

Wynn v. Peterson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 30, 2021
2:20-cv-02342 JAM AC PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)
Case details for

Wynn v. Peterson

Case Details

Full title:JESSE MICHEL WYNN, Plaintiff, v. PETERSON, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 30, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-02342 JAM AC PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2021)