1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LITTLETON, No. 2:24-cv-0449 AC P 12 Petitioner, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JOE BIDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 By an order filed February 27, 2024, petitioner was ordered to file a completed in forma 18 pauperis application or pay the filing fee and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a 19 recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 3. The thirty-day period has now 20 expired, and petitioner has not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing 21 fee, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the order was returned, 23 petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of 24 his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record 25 address of the party is fully effective. 26 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 27 directed to assign a district judge to this case. 28 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

7 | (th Cir. 1991). 8 | DATED: April 15, 2024 ~ 9 Ctlhter— Lane ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28