Opinion
4:23-cv-00924-LPR
04-29-2024
EARNEST EDWARD FRIEND #270 PLAINTIFF v. GINA DUNCAN, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
LEE P. RUDOFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Doc. 5). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. After a de novo review of the RD and careful consideration of the entire case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects.
It appears the RD was returned as undeliverable because the Plaintiff is no longer at the detention facility. See Doc. 6. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to update his address. Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will give Plaintiff 30 days to update his address with the Court and file objections to the RD. Plaintiff must file any such objections in the form of a Motion to Reconsider this Order of dismissal and the corresponding Judgment. If Plaintiff does file such a Motion, the Court will reconsider de novo any part of the RD that is properly objected to and evaluate whether this case should be re-opened.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court recommends that dismissal of this case count as a “strike,” in the future, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED