(PC) Price v. RCCC ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT RICHARD PRICE, No. 2:22-cv-0202 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 RCCC, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 By order filed September 9, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and found not to 19 state a cognizable claim. The court granted plaintiff thirty days leave to file an amended 20 complaint. The thirty day period has expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 21 otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 23 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 24 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 25 the party is fully effective. 26 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 27 shall assign a district judge to this case. 28 //// 1 In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 2 || prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen after 5 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 6 | the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 7 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 8 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 9 | 1991). 10 | Dated: November 3, 2022 11 12 13 J prco202 ans UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28