From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Green v. Atienza

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 9, 2023
2:18-cv-0731 DAD AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)

Opinion

2:18-cv-0731 DAD AC P

03-09-2023

WARREN CLEVELAND GREEN, Plaintiff, v. R. ATIENZA, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A recent court order was served on plaintiff's address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiff has failed to notify the court of a current address.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 183(b). days after service of the objections. 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Green v. Atienza

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Mar 9, 2023
2:18-cv-0731 DAD AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)
Case details for

Green v. Atienza

Case Details

Full title:WARREN CLEVELAND GREEN, Plaintiff, v. R. ATIENZA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Mar 9, 2023

Citations

2:18-cv-0731 DAD AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)