Eagle Boy v. Danaher et al
Charles Eagle Boy |
Dan Danaher, Rhonda Gaber, Randall Ware, Noord Hoek and O'Connell |
4:2008cv03090 |
May 1, 2008 |
US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
Johnson |
Joseph F. Bataillon |
Pro Se Docket |
Plaintiff |
Federal Question |
42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - 1. Plaintiffs Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute diligently and for failure to comply with the courts orders. 2. Plaintiff remains responsible for the payment of the filing fee in accordance with the courts previous Memorandum and Orders.3. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with thisMemorandum and Order.Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(PCV, ) |
Filing 9 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff failed to serve summons on Defendants by December 17, 2008. Plaintiff shall have until February 23, 2009 to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. If Plaintiff does not respond, or if good cause is not sh own, this action will be dismissed without further notice. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline with the following text: February 23, 2009: deadline for Plaintiff to show cause why service of process was not completed. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(KBJ) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.