(PC)Hopkins v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HOPKINS, No. 2:20-cv-2084 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who appears to be a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On December 29, 2021, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file an amended 22 complaint and to do so within thirty days. ECF No. 11. Thereafter, on February 9, 2022, the 23 magistrate judge’s order was returned to the court as “undeliverable, RTS, insufficient address, 24 unable to forward.” Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), however, service of documents at the address 25 of record for plaintiff is fully effective. 26 On April 25, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which 27 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to him that any objections to the findings and 28 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 14. On May 9, 2022, that order 1 | was also returned to the court, this time as “undeliverable, paroled.” Pursuant to Local Rule 2 | 182(f), service of the findings and recommendations was also effective. 3 It is plaintiffs responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. 4 | To date, plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address with the court. In addition, the sixty- 5 || three-day period within which to file a notice of change of address has also expired. See Local 6 || Rule 183(b). For these reasons, the findings and recommendations of the magistrate Judge will be 7 || accepted. 8 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 9 || 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 10 || denovo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 11 || by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 12 | ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 13 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED without 15 || prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b). 16 | DATED: June 3, 2022. 17 19 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28