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.

Joseph Delgado v. Cdcr Medical Health Care Department

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


August 22, 2011

JOSEPH DELGADO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CDCR MEDICAL HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On August 11, 2011, Susan Coleman, counsel for the sole remaining defendant (Dr. Wedell), filed a declaration stating that she had been informed by plaintiff's last place of incarceration that plaintiff was released on parole on July 2, 2011. (See Dkt. Nos. 35, 36.) Counsel states that she is unable to proceed with plaintiff's deposition (noticed for July 20, 2011) or other discovery matters if she cannot contact plaintiff. The discovery deadline is August 26, 2011. (Dkt. No. 32.) Plaintiff has not communicated with the court since June 8, 2011. (Dkt. No. 33.)

Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona promptly inform the court of any address change. There appears to be no way to contact plaintiff. Defense counsel was informed, on July 13, 2011, by the litigation department at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("SATF"), plaintiff's last place of incarceration, that plaintiff had not filed a change of address with that facility. Similarly, plaintiff has not filed a change of address in this court, although he was released on parole more than thirty days ago.

Accordingly, given the passage of time, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 182(f) and 110.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 14 days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

delg2379.address

20110822

© 1992-2011 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.