(PC)Houston v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JON LLOYD HOUSTON, No. 2:20-cv-2085 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO CO. SHERIFF’S DEPT. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal 19 service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that 20 a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixty- 21 three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiff has 22 failed to notify the Court of a current address. 23 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 24 judge to this case; and 25 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 26 prosecute. See E.D. Cal. R. 183(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 thirty days after 1 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 2 | the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 3 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 4 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 5 Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: January 22, 2021 7 8 9 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DLB:9 17 || DBy/prisoner-civil rights/hous2085.33a 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28