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.

Valencia v. Gipson

United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

November 17, 2014

LUIS ALBERTO VALENCIA, Petitioner,
v.
CONNIE GIPSON, Respondent.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

SANDRA M. SNYDER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On November 18, 2013, Petitioner Luis Alberto Valencia filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On August 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the Court dismiss count two but allow the petition to proceed on the remaining counts. The Clerk of Court served Petitioner with a copy of the court order by mail. On September 4, 2014, the copy mailed to Petitioner was returned to the Clerk marked "undeliverable, name and ID do not match."

Local Rule 183 provides:

A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such Plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

More than sixty-three (63) days having elapsed since the return of the notice mailed to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's having failed to advise the Court of his current address, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff advised that 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.