1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO R. RODAS PORTILLO, No. 1:23-cv-00920 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 14 CITY OF SHAFTER, et al., CLOSE THE CASE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 33) 16 17 Mario R. Rodas Portillo, a former county jail inmate and former state prisoner, proceeds 18 pro se and in forma pauperis in this this civil rights action. On January 15, 2025, the magistrate 19 judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and granted him 30 days from service to 20 either (1) file a third amended complaint; or (2) notify the Court that he was willing to proceed 21 only on his cognizable claim for excessive force. (Doc. 28.) The Court attempted to serve 22 Plaintiff with the screening order at a series of addresses, but each time the order was returned as 23 undeliverable. (See generally Docket.) 24 On June 20, 2025, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 25 recommended this action be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 26 this action. Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff had failed to submit an 27 effective change of address or otherwise update the Court in compliance with Local Rule 183(b). 28 (Doc. 33 at 2.) The magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff “last communicated with the Court in 1 | March 2024, (Doc. 24), and mail directed to him ha[d] been returned as undeliverable beginning 2 | i January 2025, and continuing through May 2025.” (d.) 3 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 4 | any objections were due within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 33 at 3.) The Court also informed 5 | Plaintiff that “the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 6 | the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Ud. at 4, quoting Wilkerson 7 | Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) The Findings and Recommendations served on 8 | Plaintiff were returned as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, 9 | Unable to Forward” on July 7, 2025. (See Docket.) No objections have been filed, and the time in 10 | which to do so has passed. 11 According to

(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 12 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and 13 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 20, 2025 (Doc. 33) are 15 ADOPTED. 16 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 59 | Dated: _ July 10, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28