(PS) Lugo v. Durham ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN SUE LUGO, No. 2:22-cv-0646 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ADRIANA DURHAM, THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, JAMES F. 15 LEWIN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Karen Sue Lugo is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 19 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). By order 20 signed October 19, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to 21 file an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was 22 granted twenty-eight days from the date of service of the order to file an amended complaint and 23 was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court’s order in a timely manner 24 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The twenty-eight-day period has 25 long since expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any manner. 26 Moreover, on October 27, 2022, service of the October 19, 2022 order on plaintiff was 27 returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) if mail directed to a party appearing pro 28 //// 1 | seis returned and the party does not update their address within 63 days, the Court may dismiss 2 | the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Here, the 63-day period has long passed. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 4 | prejudice. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 5 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 6 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 7 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 | with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 9 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 10 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 11 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 | Dated: March 30, 2023 13 14 15 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DLB:6 27 || DLB1\orders.pro se\lugo0646.fta.f&rs 28