IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EDWARD LORENZO RICKETTS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-466-D ) WILLIAM HOBBS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Erwin recommends the dismissal without prejudice of this civil rights action under

due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a prior order to cure deficiencies.1 The case file shows no timely objection or request for an extension of time, even though Plaintiff was expressly informed of his right to object, the procedure for doing so, and the firm waiver rule. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of the issues addressed in the Report. See Moore v. United States,

(10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St.,

(10th Cir. 1996);

1 Judge Erwin recognizes that the Clerk’s mailing of the Order to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable [Doc. No. 7] with a notation indicating Plaintiff is no longer located at his address of record. However, Plaintiff is responsible for giving notice of any change of address, and “[p]apers sent by the court will be deemed delivered if sent to the last known address given to the court.” See LCvR5.4(a). see also Theede v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor,

(10th Cir. 1999) (pro se plaintiff who failed to provide a change of address waived right to review by failing to timely object toR&R). Further, for the reasons explained by Judge Erwin, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 8] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11" day of August, 2022.

Ady □□□ TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge