Opinion
2:22-cv-0646 KJM DB PS
03-30-2023
KAREN SUE LUGO, Plaintiff, v. ADRIANA DURHAM, THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, JAMES F. LEWIN, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBOFAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Karen Sue Lugo 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). By order signed October 19, 2022, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days from the date of service of the order to file an amended complaint and was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court's order in a timely manner would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The twenty-eight-day period has long since expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order in any manner.
Moreover, on October 27, 2022, service of the October 19, 2022 order on plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) if mail directed to a party appearing pro se is returned and the party does not update their address within 63 days, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Here, the 63-day period has long passed.
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 waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).