Opinion
2:20-cv-2084 KJM AC P
06-03-2022
MICHAEL HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, who appears to be a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 29, 2021, the magistrate judge directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint and to do so within thirty days. ECF No. 11. Thereafter, on February 9, 2022, the magistrate judge's order was returned to the court as “undeliverable, RTS, insufficient address, unable to forward.” Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), however, service of documents at the address of record for plaintiff is fully effective.
On April 25, 2022, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to him that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 14. On May 9, 2022, that order was also returned to the court, this time as “undeliverable, paroled.” Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of the findings and recommendations was also effective.
It is plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. To date, plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address with the court. In addition, the sixty-three-day period within which to file a notice of change of address has also expired. See Local Rule 183(b). For these reasons, the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge will be accepted.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[Determinations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b).