Opinion
No. 2:19-cv-1046 KJM KJN P
12-19-2019
DUDLEY W. JACKLINE, Petitioner, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By order filed July 19, 2019, petitioner's habeas application was dismissed and thirty days' leave to file an amended application was granted. On September 19, 2019, prior findings and recommendations were vacated, and petitioner was granted thirty days in which to file an amended application. On November 8, 2019, petitioner was granted an additional 21 days in which to file an amended application, and warned that failure to timely file such amendment would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The twenty-one day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court's order.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the November 8, 2019 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. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(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)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Petitioner 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). Dated: December 19, 2019
/s/_________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /jack1046.fta.hab