Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-2392-KJN P
01-16-2013
JONATHAN NATHAN WEST, SR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER and
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
By order filed October 29, 2012, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.
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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action.
Further, 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 are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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).
_____________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE