(SS) (PS) Farinelli v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON D. FARINELLI, No. 2:20-cv-001207 CKD (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this Social Security action in June 2020. It was 19 administratively stayed between July 2020 and March 2022. On March 17, 2022, an order lifting 20 the stay was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears 21 that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in 22 propria persona inform the court of any address change. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district 24 judge to this action. 25 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for 26 plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 182(f) and 27 110. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 2 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 3 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 4 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 5 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 6 || (9th Cir. 1991). 7 | Dated: June 16, 2022 / hice MN fe Ho. AG CAROLYN K DELANEY? 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ address 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28