(PS) Young v. Burlingham ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, No. 2:22-cv-00053 TLN CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 A recent order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal 18 service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that 19 a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for 21 plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 182(f) and 22 110. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 27 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 28 1] || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: June 3, 2022 Card ft L (g— 4 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 || 2/young0053.f&rs_address 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28