(PC) Center v. D'Agostini ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN ROGER CENTER, No. 2:19-cv-0091 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and 14 D’AGOSTINI, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order issued January 23, 2020, this court instructed plaintiff to complete and return to 18 the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendants. See 19 ECF No. 16. That thirty-day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way 20 to the court’s order. 21 It appears from the record that on February 20, 2020, plaintiff’s copy of the order was 22 returned. However, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the 23 court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of 24 documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 26 District Court Judge to this action. 27 //// 28 //// MAIS SLD VOM EUINGINITENN Se RAMU IR Oe Ye ee 1 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 2 | Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 7 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 8 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 9 | Cir. 1991). 10 | DATED: April 30, 2020 ~ Hhthren— Char ALLISON CLAIRE 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28