(PC) Sherman v. Cory

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MYLES LAMELL SHERMAN, No. 2:20-cv-2284-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JAMES CORY, 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 6, 2021, defendant Cory, the sole defendant in this case, filed a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The time for responding to the motion passed, and plaintiff failed to file an opposition or otherwise respond.

21 On September 3, 2021, the court warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the motion could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 22. The court also provided plaintiff a 21-day extension of time to respond. Id. 24 The time for acting has once again passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, a statement of no opposition, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.1 Plaintiff has disobeyed Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. 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.

1 | this court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action. The appropriate action is dismissal without || prejudice.

3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Clerk randomly assign a United States District Judge to | this action.

5 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. || R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.

7 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

14 | DATED: September 28, 2021.

16 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE