(HC) Romo v. The People of the State of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MIGUEL GARCIA ROMO, No. 2:24-cv-03301-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents.

A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than 30 days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b).

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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s || Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within || fourteen days after 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. Martinez v. || Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7 | Dated: July 29, 2025 Duttid Zé LNA: 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]