(HC) Romero v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE JONY ROMERO, No. 2:23-cv-00760 DB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 WARDEN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 18 postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which 19 requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More 20 than one hundred eighty one days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal 21 service and petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for without 23 prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 24 Further, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign this action to a United 25 States District Judge. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 | objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 2 | Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 3 | fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 4 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 5 | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: June 24, 2024 7 8 9 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DLB:16 17 || DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Habeas/R/rome760 fta 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28