Opinion
2:21-cv-00351 AC P
09-12-2023
ROBERT JOSEPH MAHER, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 16, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. ECF No. 14. He was given thirty days to do so. Id. at 2. Shortly thereafter, on June 26, 2023, the order was returned to the court marked “Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not at This Address.”
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. See Local Rule 110; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
These findings and recommendations are 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. Such a document should be captioned “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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).