(PC) Ramos v. California Dept of Corrections ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RAMOS, No. 2:22-cv-00004 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 By order filed June 13, 2023, a recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint was 19 vacated and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period 20 has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the 21 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 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 27 dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 28 //// 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen after 3 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 4 | the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 7 | 1991). 8 | Dated: July 28, 2023 9 10 111 prey ORAH BARNES ramo0004.fta.nca UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28