(PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

JAMES LEE MATHEWS, No. 2:23-cv-00922 DC SCR P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a former county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 29, 2025, the undersigned issued a screening order granting plaintiff the option of proceeding on the cognizable claims in his first amended complaint or filing a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 17.) The order advised plaintiff that a failure to respond in 30 days would result in the recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id. at 11.) The court’s order was then returned by the postal service. (See Docket.) Under Local Rule 182(f), a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the court of any change of address. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address shall be fully effective. (Id.) More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has neither provided a notice of election on how to proceed, nor informed the court of any address change. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and failure prosecute. See Local Rule 183(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 twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (Oth Cir. 1991). DATED: May 13, 2025 cone ercmes KAMGASTRATE JUDGE 1]