1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MUSTAFFA MANSOUR, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-1054 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR ) PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, 14 NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al., ) DENYING AS MOOT DEFNDANT’S MOTION ) FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND 15 Defendants. ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE ) THIS CASE 16 ) ) (Doc. 91, 94) 17

18 Mustaffa Mansour sought to hold Correctional Officer Luken liable for excessive force in 19 violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights while he was housed at North Kern State Prison. (See 20 Doc. 34 at 1-2.) After the Postal Service returned the Court’s mail as “Undeliverable, Return to 21 Sender, Paroled/Discharged” on June 12, 2025, Plaintiff did not file any notice of a change of address. 22 Defendants moved for an order to show cause regarding dismissal. (Doc. 91.) The magistrate judge 23 found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the action and terminating sanctions are appropriate after considering 24 the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 94 at 2-5.) The magistrate judge recommended the 25 Court dismiss the action and deny Defendant’s motion. (Id. at 5.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff at the address on record and 27 notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 94 at 6.) The Court advised him that 28 the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 1 || Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) The Postal Service again 2 || returned the Court’s mail as ‘“Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable 3 || to Forward, Paroled/Discharged” on September 8, 2025. Nevertheless, the Court’s service is deemed 4 || fully effective pursuant to Local Rule 182(f). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of 5 || address or otherwise communicated with the Court. 6 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 7 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 8 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 22, 2025 (Doc. 94) are □□□□□□□ 10 in full. 11 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 3. Defendant’s motion for an order to show cause is denied as MOOT. 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 15 ITIS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _September 24, 2025 Charis [Tourn 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28