(PC) Dupree, Jr. v. Horn

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RICHARD JOSE DUPREE, JR., ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0086 JLT GSA (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMEMNDATIONS IN FULL, DISMISSING 13 v. ) THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CLOSE THIS CASE 14 HORN, et al., ) ) (Doc. 10) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 Richard Jose Dupree, Jr. is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil 18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 19, 2023, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to comply with a court order, and 21 recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 10 at 1-3.) The Findings and 22 Recommendations were served at the only known address for Plaintiff, and contained a notice that any 23 objections were due no later than June 9, 2023. (Id. at 2-3.) However, the Findings and 24 Recommendations were returned to the Court on May 26, 2023, with the notation “Undeliverable, 25 Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward.” To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the 26 Court’s orders nor filed a notice of a change of address. 27 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the Court performed a de novo 28 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 1 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Moreover, the Court’s mail was 2 || returned as undeliverable on May 26, 2023. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a notice of a change of 3 || address was due no later than July 28, 2023. Because Plaintiff failed to keep the Court informed of a 4 || proper mailing address, dismissal is also appropriate for his failure to comply with Local Rule 183(b) 5 || See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with loca 6 rule); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with the 7 || local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on May 19, 2023 (Doc. 10) are ADOPTE 9 in full. 10 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 13 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: _ August 4, 2023 ( LAW ph L. wan 15 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28