IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 26, 2012
STEVEN QUINN, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, DEFENDANT.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
By order filed July 12, 2012, plaintiff's first amended complaint was dismissed and he was granted thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the court's July 12, 2012 order was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served at his address of record. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the Local Rules and with the court's orders. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
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)(1). Within fourteen 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." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.