(PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES LEE MATHEWS, No. 2:23-cv-00922 DC SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 18 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 29, 2025, the undersigned issued a screening 19 order granting plaintiff the option of proceeding on the cognizable claims in his first amended 20 complaint or filing a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) The order advised plaintiff that 21 a failure to respond in 30 days would result in the recommendation that the action be dismissed. 22 (Id. at 11.) The court’s order was then returned by the postal service. (See Docket.) Under Local 23 Rule 182(f), a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the court of any change of address. 24 Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address shall be fully effective. (Id.) 25 More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has neither provided a notice of election 26 on how to proceed, nor informed the court of any address change. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 27 RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with 28 court orders and failure prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). ] 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 twenty-one days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 5 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 7 || (Oth Cir. 1991). 8 | DATED: May 13, 2025 9 10 cone ercmes KAMGASTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento ((PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.