Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terrell v. State of California Employment Development Dep't

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 28, 2010

ROBERT TERRELL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANT.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed December 3, 2009, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a new in forma pauperis application that provides all required information. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to the order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a properly completed in forma pauperis application or responded in any way to the court's order.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned to the court marked undeliverable, return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, and unable to forward, plaintiff was properly served with the order. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of a current address at all times. Local Rule 182(f). Absent notice of a party's change of address, service of documents at the party's address of record is fully effective. Id.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to comply with Local Rule 182(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20100128

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.