(HC) Rubio v. Raythel Fisher ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELO RUBIO, JR., No. 2:16-cv-1277 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RAYTHEL FISHER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 18 postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which 19 requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More 20 than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and 21 petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The stay of this case is lifted. 24 2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 25 action. 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for without prejudice 27 for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 □□ □□ MEET EO ROS NEE MUO i PR IIe AY ee 1 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 2 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 3 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 4 | Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 5 | fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 6 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 7 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: September 8, 2020 bh adj ke / nx ? CAROLYN K. DELANEY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/mubi1277.133a 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28