Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-1987-MCE-EFB P
11-25-2013
MARCUS WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 25, 2013, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and informed plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition to the motion.
On October 29, 2013, the court warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the motion could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The court also granted plaintiff a 21-day extension of time to respond. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, a statement of no opposition, or otherwise responded to the court's order. Plaintiff has disobeyed this court's orders and failed to prosecute this action. The appropriate action is dismissal without prejudice.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of this 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 RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(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, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
________________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE