(HC) Rush v. Davis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON L. RUSH, No. 2:18-cv-0589 JAM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RONALD DAVIS, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On September 17, 2020, petitioner was ordered to show cause, within fourteen days, why 18 this action should not be subject to dismissal for petitioner’s failure to prosecute and to comply 19 with the Local Rules. Fourteen days have passed, and petitioner has not shown cause or 20 otherwise responded to the court’s order. 21 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the order was returned, 22 petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of 23 his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record 24 address of the party is fully effective. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 26 prejudice. See 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 wASe 2 LOY EMM YVOS UY EAINTUING IN RAMU to POO Ie OY ev 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 | Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 4 | fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 5 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 6 | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 7 | Dated: October 5, 2020 Fesll Arn 9 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 /rush0589.fsc 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28