(PC)Houston v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON LLOYD HOUSTON, No. 2:20-cv-2085 DB P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

SACRAMENTO CO. SHERIFF’S DEPT. et al.,

Defendants.

A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), 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 plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of a current address.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. Cal. R. 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)(l). Within thirty 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 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 22, 2021

ORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DLB:9

DBy/prisoner-civil rights/hous2085.33a