1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN LEE TACKETT, No. 2:25-cv-0940 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 RIVER CITY DRUG REHAB, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 31, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis 18 application or pay the filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would 19 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now expired, 20 and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 21 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 22 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 23 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 24 the party is fully effective. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 26 court judge to this case; and 27 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ] 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, any party may file written 4 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 6 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 9 | Dated: May 2, 2025 / hice ANKE) flo "0 CAROLYNK.DELANEY/ 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14] 4 15 tack0940.fifp 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28