(PC) Pile v. Becker ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB M. PILE, No. 2:20-cv-0728 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 BAKER, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed December 7, 2020, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to 18 the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendant Becker. 19 That thirty-day period has passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the December 7, 2020 was 21 returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court 22 apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents 23 at the record address of the party is fully effective. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 25 court judge to this case; and 26 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 28 ///// 1 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 5 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 | Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: January 11, 2021 fi dp. | bie ? CAROLYN K. DELANEY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 | , 4 pile0728.fusm 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28