1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MATHEW TATARAKIS, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0879 JLT GSA (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING 13 v. ) THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 MERCED COUNTY, et al., ) THIS CASE ) 15 Defendant. ) (Doc. 5.) ) 16 )

17 Mathew Tatarakis is a prisoner proceeding pro se with this action, which he initiated by filing 18 a complaint on June 8, 2023. Because Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, the magistrate judge ordered 19 Plaintiff to pay the filing or filing an application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the Court’s 20 mail was returned as undeliverable on June 20, 2023. 21 On July 28, 2023, the magistrate judge observed that “service at a party’s prior address is fully 22 effective” when a party has not provided a notice of change of address. (Doc. 5 at 2, n.1, citing Local 23 Rule 182(f).) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order, and 24 recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 3.) These Findings and 25 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff at the only address known to the Court but were also 26 returned as undeliverable on August 7, 2023. 27 Notably, the Local Rules require a plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of his current address. 28 Specifically, the Rules state: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned 1 || by the U.S. Postal service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 2 || sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 3 || prejudice for failure to prosecute.” See Local Rule 183(b). Because the first order was returned to th 4 || Court on June 20, 2023, any notice of change of address was due no later than August 22, 2023. Thu 5 || Plaintiff has also failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules, and dismissal is also appropriate on 6 these grounds. See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to 7 ||comply with local rules); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 8 || failure to prosecute and failure to comply with local rules). 9 Pursuant to

(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 10 || Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 11 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 28, 2023 (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED 13 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 30, 2023 ( LAW pA L. wan 18 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28