Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-1648 JAM AC PS (TEMP)
07-20-2016
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB TRS CORP., et al, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, Michael Williams, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On April 20, 2016, the assigned District Judge issued an order granting plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw. (ECF No. 16.) Court records reflect that on May 3, 2016, plaintiff's copy of the order was returned to the court by the postal service as undeliverable, return to sender.
It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182, which requires every party, including any party proceeding pro se, to notify the court and all other parties of any change of address. Local Rule 182(f). "Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective." Id. Failure to comply with the Court's rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the Court. Local Rule 110.
Good cause appearing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address and his failure to comply with applicable rules and Court orders.
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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed 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). DATED: July 20, 2016
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE