From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prince v. Ramsey

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 19, 2021
2:20-cv-1962 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)

Opinion

2:20-cv-1962 TLN KJN P

11-19-2021

DAVID SWANK PRINCE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL RAMSEY, Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A recent court order was served on petitioner's address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change.

Accordingly, 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)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 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).


Summaries of

Prince v. Ramsey

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 19, 2021
2:20-cv-1962 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)
Case details for

Prince v. Ramsey

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SWANK PRINCE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL RAMSEY, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 19, 2021

Citations

2:20-cv-1962 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2021)