(PS) Santillan v. California Bar Examiners

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 CHELSIE M. SANTILLAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-0571-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINERS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal 18 service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that 19 a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than thirty 20 days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service, and plaintiff has failed 21 to notify the Court of a current address. 22 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. L.R. 183(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 4 1991). 5

Dated: _ July 14, 2025 q——— 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28