Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-1022 LKK KJN P
2013-09-24
JAMIASEN DRAKE, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By an order filed August 14, 2013, plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to comply with this court's June 11, 2013 order directing plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly-completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the June 11, 2013 order may result in the dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 6.) Thirty days from August 14, 2013 have now passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the appropriate filing fee.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the August 14, 2013 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.
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 and serve a copy on all parties. 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).
___________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE