(PC) Dailey v. Ellis

Opinion

SHARON N. DAILEY, No. 2:23-cv-0786 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOHN B. ELLIS, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se. By order filed December 6, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, and on January 12, 2024, it was recommended that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff filed objections; the findings and recommendations were vacated, and on January 24, 2024, plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days in which to amend. Thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 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 her 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 RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 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: March 4, 2024 fi se / bps ANI fe fo. AG " CAROLYNK.DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13. ] /dailo786.fta2