Opinion
1:19-cv-01101-DAD-JLT (PC)
11-12-2021
ZURI HENLEY, Plaintiff, v. BURNES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. No. 27)
Plaintiff Zuri Henley is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On June 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that plaintiff's second amended complaint violates Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by raising unrelated claims against multiple defendants. (Doc. No. 26.) The magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file a third amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies in his pleading within twenty-one (21) days. (Id. at 13-14.) On June 28, 2021, the U.S. Postal Service returned the screening order to the court as undeliverable.
Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), if mail directed to a pro se plaintiff “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.” Although more than 63 days have passed since the U.S. Postal Service returned the magistrate judge's screening order, plaintiff has yet to notify the court of his current address.
Accordingly, on September 14, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiffs failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 27.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him fourteen (14) days to file objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, and the time do so has passed.
The U.S. Postal Service returned the findings and recommendations as undeliverable on September 29, 2021. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), if a pro se party fails to notify the court of a change of address, “service of documents at the prior address [of record] of the . . . party shall be fully effective.”
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 14, 2021 (Doc. No. 27) are adopted in full;
2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff s failure to prosecute; and,
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.