From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seefeldt v. Somonin

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0148 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-0148 EFB P.

February 1, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

On December 9, 2010, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. The dismissal order explained the complaint's deficiencies, gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint correcting those deficiencies, and warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint may result in this action being dismissed.

The 30-day period has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the 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 ordered that this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

Dated: January 31, 2011.


Summaries of

Seefeldt v. Somonin

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0148 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Seefeldt v. Somonin

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN SCOTT SEEFELDT, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE SOMONIN, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 1, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-0148 EFB P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2011)