(PC) Beeson v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAYLOR A. BEESON, No. 2:23-cv-1621 DJC CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, F.C.I. HERLONG, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 5, 2024, the court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, 18 within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendant Birtwell. That 19 thirty-day period has passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the docket that plaintiff’s copy of the September 5, 2024, order 21 was returned by the U.S. Postal Service, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s 22 responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 23 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 25 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations will be 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, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 2 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 3 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 4} Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: October 16, 2024 Card ht fa he 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 bees 1621 fusm(2) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28