BRANDES v. LUDWICK, C13-2072-LRR. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Iowa
Number: infdco20140806908
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the court on the court's order dated July 1, 2014 (docket no. 23). Pursuant to such order, the court responded to the respondent's concerns by extending the deadlines to brief the merits of the petitioner's claims and directed the petitioner to file a brief in support of his claims on or before August 1, 2014. The petitioner failed to do so, and he has previously indicated in his correspondence that he no longer desires to pursu
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the court on the court's order dated July 1, 2014 (docket no. 23). Pursuant to such order, the court responded to the respondent's concerns by extending the deadlines to brief the merits of the petitioner's claims and directed the petitioner to file a brief in support of his claims on or before August 1, 2014. The petitioner failed to do so, and he has previously indicated in his correspondence that he no longer desires to pursue..
More
ORDER
LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the court's order dated July 1, 2014 (docket no. 23). Pursuant to such order, the court responded to the respondent's concerns by extending the deadlines to brief the merits of the petitioner's claims and directed the petitioner to file a brief in support of his claims on or before August 1, 2014. The petitioner failed to do so, and he has previously indicated in his correspondence that he no longer desires to pursue this action. In light of the record, the petitioner is notified that his action will be dismissed if he does not file a brief in support of his claims or take other appropriate action on or before August 25, 2014. If the petitioner fails to act by this deadline, the clerk's office is directed to dismiss the petitioner's action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting dismissal where a plaintiff either fails to prosecute or fails to respond to an order of the court); Barnett v. Ray, 320 F. App'x 823, 824-25 (10th Cir. 2009) (same); Kennedy v. Reid, 208 F. App'x 678, 679 (10th Cir. 2006) (same); Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, 116 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining court's power to dismiss an action); Edgington v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 52 F.3d 777, 779-80 (8th Cir. 1995) (same), abrogated on other grounds by Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 989 (8th Cir. 2005).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
