(HC) James v. Seibel ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GORDON JAMES, No. 2:18-cv-0358 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KIMBERLY A. SEIBEL, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Two court orders have been served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 18 postal service. ECF Nos. 7, 16. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 19 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address 20 change. More than sixty-three days have passed since the first court order was returned by the 21 postal service, and petitioner has failed to notify the court of a current address. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 23 prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 1 | fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 2 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 3 || Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | DATED: May 19, 2022 ~ 5 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28