Coney v. Lozo

Opinion

* * *

WILLIAM CONEY, Case No. 2:23-cv-001645-GMN-EJY

Plaintiff,

v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARISCAL, JOSEPH LOMBARDO;

Defendants.

On May 20, 2024, the Court entered an Order adopting in its entirety the Report and Recommendation entered on February 26, 2024. ECF Nos. 9, 19. In an Order entered along with the Report and Recommendation the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his Complaint. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and each of the Court’s Orders and the Report and Recommendation has been returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. ECF Nos. 11, 20. On June 13, 2024, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiff to update his address in accordance with Local Rule IA 3-1. ECF No. 21. The Order advised Plaintiff that if he failed to update his address the Court would recommend dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff has not updated his address, which remains one to which mail is not deliverable. ECF No. 22. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed in its entirety.

DATED this 25th day of July, 2024.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).