From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Parske

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 20, 2015
No. 2:13-cv-208-TLN-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-208-TLN-EFB PS

03-20-2015

BRETT ANDERSON, MICHELLE ANDERSON, P.J. ANDERSON, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. KRISTEN PARSKE, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). On November 7, 2014, the court issued an order directing the Clerk to send plaintiffs the forms necessary for the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process. That order was served on plaintiffs' address of record and each copy was returned as undeliverable by the postal service. Service cannot be properly effected without the plaintiffs providing the needed information by completing the forms. It also appears that plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rules 182(f) & 183(b), which requires all parties, including a party appearing in propria persona, to inform the court of any address change. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiffs' failure to prosecute and failure to keep the court apprised of their current address. See Local Rules 100, 182(f), 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). DATED: March 20, 2015.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Anderson v. Parske

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 20, 2015
No. 2:13-cv-208-TLN-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Anderson v. Parske

Case Details

Full title:BRETT ANDERSON, MICHELLE ANDERSON, P.J. ANDERSON, a minor, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 20, 2015

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-208-TLN-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)