(PC) Hernandez v. Stanislaus County Sheriff ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NOEL HERNANDEZ, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1075 JLT GSA (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMEMNDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING 13 v. ) THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THIS CASE 14 STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., ) ) (Doc. 12) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Noel Hernandez is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 21, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with a court 21 order, and recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 12 at 2-3.) The Findings 22 and Recommendations were served at the only known address for Plaintiff, and it notified him that any 23 objections were due no later than July 12, 2023. (Id. at 3.) However, the Findings and 24 Recommendations were returned to the Court on July 10, 2023, with the notation “Undeliverable, No 25 Longer At This Address.” To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s orders nor filed a 26 notice of a change of address. 27 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the Court performed a de novo 28 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 1 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Moreover, all Court mail has bee 2 || returned to the Court as undeliverable since May 8, 2023. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a notice of 3 || change of address was due no later than July 10, 2023. Because Plaintiff failed to keep the Court 4 || informed of a proper mailing address, dismissal is also appropriate for his failure to comply with Loc 5 || Rule 183(b). See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for 6 || noncompliance with local rule); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal □□□ 7 || failure to comply with the local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address). 8 || Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 21, 2023 (Doc. 12) are ADOPTE 10 in full. 11 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ July 17, 2023 ( LAW pA L. wan 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:21-cv-01075

Filed Date: 7/18/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024