From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Burlingham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:22-cv-00053 TLN CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-00053 TLN CKD (PS)

06-03-2022

DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A recent order was served on plaintiff's address of record and returned by the postal service. It appears that plaintiff 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 for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 182(f) and 110.

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, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff 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).


Summaries of

Young v. Burlingham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 3, 2022
2:22-cv-00053 TLN CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Young v. Burlingham

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN RICHARD BURLINGHAM, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 3, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-00053 TLN CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2022)