Case ID: or-app_151/html/0198-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on record and briefs June 27,
    motion to supplement record allowed; affirmed November 5,1997
    Hal PUSATERI, Appellant, v. Horst RUDOLF and William Miles, Respondents.
    
    (95CV-1891CC; CA A92021)
    947 P2d 625
    Hal Pusateri filed the briefpro se.
    
    No appearance for respondents.
    Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint for want of prosecution. Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 31, 1995. He thereafter filed a series of documents that purported to establish that defendants had been served with summons and complaint by certified or registered mail and in person. None of the documents was sufficient to establish proper service. Defendants submitted documents indicating their intention to appear, but no defendant appeared in the action.

On November 7, 1995, the court sent plaintiff a notice that the action would be dismissed unless plaintiff filed a proper return of service within 28 days of that date. At plaintiffs request, the court extended that deadline to January 21, 1996. Plaintiff did not file a return within that time, so the court entered a judgment on January 24, 1996, dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

Plaintiff assigns error to entry of the judgment and moves to supplement the record. The motion to supplement the record is allowed. Based on plaintiffs arguments and our review of the record, as supplemented, we conclude that the court did not err in dismissing the action for want of prosecution.

Motion to supplement record allowed; affirmed.