From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stanley v. Schmidt

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 23, 2015
2:14-cv-1782 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2015)

Opinion


ANDREW D. STANLEY, Plaintiff, v. PAUL SCHMIDT, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-1782 CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. June 23, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned.

         By an order filed February 23, 2015, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendants. That thirty day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way 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 be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).


Summaries of

Stanley v. Schmidt

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 23, 2015
2:14-cv-1782 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Stanley v. Schmidt

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW D. STANLEY, Plaintiff, v. PAUL SCHMIDT, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jun 23, 2015

Citations

2:14-cv-1782 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2015)