1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKSHMI SINGH-SANDHU, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-1236 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 KAPUR C. SANDHU, et al., ) THE CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 11) ) 16 ) 17 Lakshmi Singh Sandhu initiated this action by filing a complaint and application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis on October 11, 2024. (Docs. 1, 2.) However, Plaintiff’s application did not contain 19 sufficient information for the Court to determine whether she satisfied the indigency requirements. 20 Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a completed application on November 7, 2024. (Doc. 6.) 21 The U.S. Postal Service returned the Court’s mail marked: “Undeliverable, Does not live here, RTS, 22 Refused, Unable to Forward” on December 12, 2024. Although the Court attempted re-service at a 23 different address, the Postal Service again returned the mail as undeliverable on December 20, 2024, 24 and December 30, 2024. 25 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with 26 Local Rule 183(b), which requires a party proceeding in propria persona to keep the Court informed of 27 a proper mailing address. (Doc. 11 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge determined dismissal of the action is 28 appropriate, after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit prior to imposing terminating 1 || sanctions for failure to prosecute. (d., citing Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988).) 2 || Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice. (/d. at □ 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations Plaintiff at the address on record. 4 || However, the U.S. Postal Service again returned the Court’s mail as undeliverable on March 21, 202! 5 || Despite this, the service upon Plaintiff is deemed fully effective pursuant to Local Rule 182(f). 6 || Plaintiff did not file objections or take any other action to prosecute this case. 7 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 8 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 9 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 7, 2025 (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED i 11 full. 12 2. The action is DISIMSSED without prejudice, due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. 13 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _ March 30, 2025 ( LAW pA L. wan 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28