(PC) Peterson v. Alameda County Sheriff Dept. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARY LEE PETERSON, No. 2:23-cv-00218-DJC-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed August 28, 2023, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed 18 and granted thirty days leave to file an amended complaint. The thirty day period has now 19 expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s 20 order. 21 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 22 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 23 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 24 the party is fully effective. 25 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 26 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 4 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 5 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 6 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 7 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 8 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: December 6, 2023 ZA LPG ot LACEY EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28