1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY VINCENT DOVE, No. 1:23-cv-0586 JLT SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, 13 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK 14 MERCED COUNTY DISTRICT OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE ATTORNEY OFFICE, et al., 15 (Doc. 8) Defendants. 16 17 Rodney Vincent Dove initiated this action by filing a complaint on April 10, 2023, but 18 failed to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the 19 Court ordered Plaintiff to apply to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee in full. (Doc. 20 5.) However, the order was returned and marked “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, No such 21 Street, Unable to Forward” on April 27, 2023. 22 On July 6, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the 23 action and recommended the matter be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 8.) The Findings and 24 Recommendations were served upon Plaintiff at the only address known to the Court, and 25 contained a notice that any objections were due within 14 days of the date of service. (Id. at 3.) 26 However, the Findings and Recommendations were also returned as undeliverable. To date, 27 Plaintiff has neither filed objections nor filed any documents to further his prosecution of this 28 action, including a notice of change of address. 1 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 | Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Because Plaintiff has not 4 | paid the filing fee, the action is unable to proceed. Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), any 5 || notice of a change of address was due no later than June 29, 2023. Because Plaintiff failed to 6 | keep the Court informed of a proper mailing address, dismissal is also appropriate for his failure 7 | comply with Local Rule 183(b). See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) 8 | (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 9 | 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with the local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court 10 | apprised of address). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 6, 2023 (Doc. 8), are 12 ADOPTED IN FULL. 13 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17] Dated: _ August 4, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28