Opinion
2:23-CV-137-BJR-DWC
12-04-2023
KENNETH RAY FOY, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Defendant.
Noting Dated: December 22, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
David W. Christel Chief United States Magistrate Judge
The District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. As Plaintiff Kenneth Ray Foy has not kept the Court advised of his current address, the Court recommends dismissing this action without prejudice.
On September 18, 2023, the Clerk of Court mailed Plaintiff this Court's Order Denying
Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. Dkt. 20. The Order was returned as undeliverable on October 2, 2023. Dkt. 23. The Court directed Plaintiff to update his address by December 1, 2023. Dkt. 24. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to update his address would result in the undersigned recommending dismissal of this action without prejudice.
The Court directed the Clerk's Office to send a copy the Order directing Plaintiff to update his address to Plaintiff's last known address and to the Washington Corrections Center (DOC # 339405). Dkt. 24.
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's order directing him to update his address. Further, he has not responded to Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss or otherwise taken action in this case since July 31, 2023. See Dkt. 18.
Plaintiff has not kept the Court advised as to his current mailing address and has failed to respond to the Court's order directing him to do so. Accordingly, the Court recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Local Rule 41(b)(2). The Court further recommends all pending motions be denied as moot.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on December 22, 2023, as noted in the caption.