(PC) Lopez v. Solano County Justice Center ( 2023 )

1 , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHANIE LOPEZ, No. 2:23-cv-1023 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 On August 22, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an 19 amended complaint was granted. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not 20 filed an amended complaint. Although it appears from the docket that plaintiff’s copy of the 21 August 22, 2023, order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s 22 responsibility to keep the court apprised of a current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 23 182(f), service of documents 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 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 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 Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 || time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 || Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: October 12, 2023 / hice ANKE) flo ° CAROLYN K DELANEY? 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 | 1 14 lope1023.fta 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28