1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON THORNTON, No. 2:22-cv-1882 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DEB K., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed April 10, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and plaintiff was granted 18 leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The thirty day period has long since expired, 19 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 21 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 22 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 23 the party is fully effective. 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge 25 to this case. 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 27 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen after 2 || being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 3 || the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 4 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 5 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 6 | 1991). 7 | DATED: December 18, 2024 ~ 8 Ctlhter— Lane ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28