(PC) Gonzales v. Guild ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN ALBERT GONZALES, Jr., No. 2:19-cv-0380 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STEVEN GUILD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed December 17, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within fourteen 18 days, why his action should not be dismissed. The fourteen-day period has now expired, and 19 plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 21 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 22 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 23 the party is fully effective. 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign a district judge to this case. 25 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 26 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 3 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 4 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 5 | (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: January 22, 2020 Foci) Aharon 8 KENDALL J. NE Jeonr0380.fse UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28