(PC) Birrell v. Fox ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, et al., No. 2:16-cv-1818 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROBERT W. FOX, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding pro se and individually. On May 10, 2019, this 18 matter was stayed to permit plaintiffs to find representation. On June 29, 2022, the court ordered 19 that, within 21days, plaintiffs file a status report indicating whether they have obtained counsel 20 and, if not, whether they wish to pursue this matter pro se. Plaintiffs were warned that failure to 21 respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Plaintiffs 22 Loughmiller, Preyer and Acevedo have not responded to the court’s order. Although it appears 23 from the file that copies of the court’s June 29, 2022 order sent to these plaintiffs were returned, 24 these plaintiffs was properly served. It is a plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of 25 their current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the 26 record address of the party is fully effective. 27 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs 28 Loughmiller, Preyer and Acevedo be dismissed. ] 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, any party may file written 4 || objections 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.” Any response to the 6 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 | Dated: August 4, 2022 □□ / del a 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14] 4 15 birr1818.frs.2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28