(PC) Littleton v. Montiez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LITTLETON, No. 2:22-cv-0700 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MARK MONTIEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed October 17, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave 18 to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff 19 has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 21 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 22 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 23 the party is fully effective. 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 25 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4} 1991). 5 || Dated: December 1, 2022 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE few/litt0700.fta UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28