(PC) Martin v. County of San Joaquin

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND MARTIN, Case No. 2: 24-cv-2100-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in pro per inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiff has failed to notify the court of a current address.1 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this matter.

24 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b).

1 As of January 1, 2025, Local Rule 183 provides that “[i]f mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”

1 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)(1). Within fourteen days of | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See || Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. | 1991).

Wl IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ January 24, 2025 q-—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE