(PC) Dickerson v. Wheeler

Opinion

JEFFREY DICKERSON, No. 2:24-cv-0895-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND B. WHEELER, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. By order filed December 3, 2024, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened and plaintiff was ordered to return the notice of election form within thirty days indicating whether he wanted to proceed on his cognizable ADA claim or whether he wanted to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff was granted an extension of time. The time period for plaintiff’s response has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed the notice of election or otherwise responded to the court’s order. The Court’s December 3 order warned “that [plaintiff’s] failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.” ECF No. 18 at 9. 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. Plaintiff’s failure to update his address with the court furnishes another reason to dismiss this action. See Local Rule 183(b). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 110; Local Rule 183(b); 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 days 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: May 14, 2025 Kink UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE