(PC)Rogers v. California State Prison Corcoran

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN ROGERS, No. 1:23-cv-01158 GSA 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ORDER RECOMMENDING MATTER BE CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE CORCORAN, et al., NOTICE OF CURRENT ADDRESS WITH 15 COURT Defendants.

16 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On August 1, 2024, an order which directed Plaintiff to file a notice of current address (ECF No. 7) was returned to the Court marked “Undeliverable, Refused.” Since then, more than sixty-three days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of current address with the Court.

See Local Rule 183(b).

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.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this matter.

5 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a notice of current address with the Court.

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)(l). Within fourteen after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. Objections should not exceed fifteen pages. 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 waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: October 9, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE