(PC) Dailey v. Ellis

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00786
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARON N. DAILEY, No. 2:23-cv-0786 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JOHN B. ELLIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed December 6, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and thirty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has expired, and plaintiff 19 has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 21 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 22 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 23 the party is fully effective. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 25 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 26 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 27 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 28 //// ] 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 after 3 || being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 4 || the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 5 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 7 | 1991). 8 | Dated: January 12, 2024 Foci) Aharon 10 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] /dail0786.fta.nca 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28