(PC) McFadden v. Newsom ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARSENE MCFADDEN, No. 2:21-cv-02411 DAD DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GAVIN C. NEWSOME, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order served on September 8, 2022, the court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint 18 and granted thirty days leave to file a further amended complaint. The time period granted for 19 filing a further amended complaint has expired and plaintiff has not filed a further amended 20 complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Although plaintiff’s copy of the order 21 served by mail was returned undelivered, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s 22 responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 23 182(f), service of documents at a party’s record address is fully effective. 24 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 25 dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen after 28 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 1 | the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 2 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 3 | waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 | Dated: October 13, 2022 6 7 8 mofa2A 1.ftanca ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28