Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02832/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02832-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patricia A. Copeland
Plaintiff
Harold C. Copeland
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 All parties have consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c), to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA A. COPELAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD C. COPELAND,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-2832 BZ

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On June 27, 2006, I ordered plaintiff to show cause in

person on July 24, 2006 why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute.1 The order to show cause

resulted from plaintiff's failure to appear at the Case

Management Conference re-scheduled for June 26, 2006, after

previously scheduled Case Management Conferences were

continued at plaintiff's request. In the year this case has

been in federal court nothing has been done to prosecute it,

other than to serve defendant. Plaintiff has not responded to

Case 3:05-cv-02832-BZ Document 20 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the order to show cause. 

 In light of plaintiff's apparent unwillingness to comply

with court orders or to otherwise prosecute her case, 

dismissal is appropriate. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this

action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Dated: July 27, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\COPELAND\DISMISSAL.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02832-BZ Document 20 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2