(PC) Steele v. Shasta County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DERRICK SKYLER STEELE, No. 2:21-cv-0062 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SHASTA COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 6, 2022, plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint, and he was 18 given thirty days to do so. ECF No. 7. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has 19 not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 21 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 22 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 23 the party is fully effective. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 25 District Judge to this action. 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 27 See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 28 //// ] These findings and recommendations are 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 after 3 || being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 4 || the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 7 | 1991). 8 | DATED: March 7, 2023 ~ Lhier—e_ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28