1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM MILLS, No. 2:25-cv-2104 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 PLACER COUNTY SHERRIFF’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OFFICE, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 On August 1, 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. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s 22 copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 23 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 24 of documents at the record address of 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. 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: September 22, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce

11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14] 4 15 mill2 104. fifp 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28