(PC) Lyle v. Redman ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WILLIAM LYLE, JR., No. 2:22-cv-01801 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GARY REDMON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed June 6, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has 19 not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. It further appears 20 based on the notice from the Amador County Sheriff’s Office that plaintiff is no longer located at 21 the address of record. 22 Although it appears plaintiff is no longer located at the address of record, plaintiff is 23 properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address 24 at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the 25 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 11 J scis01 ns ONEEED Ci acies SiSTENG JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28