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.

Ostapenko v. Meyer

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 6, 2015

VIKTOR NIKOLAYEVICH OSTAPENKO, Petitioner,
v.
CRAIG MEYER et al., Respondents

Viktor Nikolayevich Ostapenko, Petitioner, Pro se, Marysville, CA.

For Craig Meyer, ICE Field Office Director, Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Steven Durfor, Sheriff, Yuba County Jail, CA, Respondents: Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, LEAD ATTORNEY, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Stockton, CA; Audrey Benison Hemesath, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Attorney's Office, Sacramento, CA.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DALE A. DROZD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

A recent court order was served on petitioner's address of record and returned to the court by the postal service as undeliverable. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and petitioner has failed to notify the court of a current address.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner's failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(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, any party 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 fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).


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.