Dukes v. Hedgpeth

Full title: MELVIN DUKES, Petitioner, v. A. HEDGPETH, et al., Respondents.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 3, 2011

CIV S-11-0004 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011)

Opinion

MELVIN DUKES, Petitioner, v. A. HEDGPETH, et al., Respondents. No. CIV S-11-0004 DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. February 3, 2011

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Recent court documents were served on petitioner's address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be randomly assigned to a District Judge.

         Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 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 twenty-one 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." 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).