1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY JONATHAN DOHRMAN, No. 2:25-cv-1934 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 PLACER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On July 15, 2025, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis application 19 or pay the filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a 20 recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now expired, and 21 plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 22 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the July 15, 2025, order was 23 returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court 24 apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents 25 at the record address of the party is fully effective. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 27 court judge to this case; and 28 ///// ] IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 2 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 || with the court. Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 7 || waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 8 || 1991). 9 | Dated: August 27, 2025 □□ I / dip Ze 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14], 5 dohr1934-fifp 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28