(PC) Brashear v. Pierce ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMETRIUS K. BRASHEAR, No. 2:22-cv-0902 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 C. PIERCE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed November 15, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On December 14, 2022, the order was re-served 19 on plaintiff. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended 20 complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 21 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 22 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 23 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 24 the party is fully effective. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 26 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 27 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 28 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ] 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 days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 6 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 7 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: January 24, 2023 Foci) Aharon 10 KENDALL J. NE oras0902.fia UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28