Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

RICHARD B. KELLY, Plaintiff, v. DR. RAKESH CHANDRA, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM STIEHL, Senior District Judge

On October 21, 2008, this Court issued its Memorandum and Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint indicating that the named Defendants were directly responsible for and deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's conditions of confinement and his need for medical treatment. See (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint within the allotted time, then his complaint would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. More than thirty days have passed and the Court has not received Plaintiff's amended complaint.

In the prior order, the Court determined that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Before dismissing the complaint, however, the Court granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend it.

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and for failing to comply with an order of this Court, Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KELLY v. CHANDRA
(Dec 1, 2008)