(PC) Browning v. Burkhart

Opinion

ELRADER BROWNING, III, No. 2:21-cv-0978 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M. BURKHART, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 26, 2023, plaintiff’s second amended complaint was screened. ECF No. 29. At that time, plaintiff was directed to complete the notice on how to proceed form and file it with the court within fourteen days. Id. at 8-9. On July 17, 2023, the court’s order was returned as “Undeliverable, Return to Sender; Unable to Forward.” Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. //// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this matter. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to obey a court order. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: September 27, 2023 . Attten— Lhor—e_ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE