Opinion
2:21-cv-2351 TLN DB PS
04-05-2023
SHEILA HALOUSEK, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Sheila Halousek is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On April 26, 2022, and October 31, 2022, orders sent to plaintiff were returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) a plaintiff appearing pro se has a duty to keep the Court advised of his or her current address. If mail directed at the plaintiff is returned by the U.S. Postal Service and the plaintiff fails to provide a current address within 63 days, “the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) Here, well over 63 days have passed and plaintiff has not provided a current address.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).