Valencia v. Gipson

Filing 21

FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That The Court Dismiss Case Without Prejudice For Failure To Prosecute (Doc. 18 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/17/2014. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 12/8/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LUIS ALBERTO VALENCIA,

10

Petitioner,

11
12

Case No. 1:13-CV-01864-LJO-SMS HC

v.
CONNIE GIPSON,

13

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT
DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Respondent.

14
15
16
17
18

On November 18, 2013, Petitioner Luis Alberto Valencia filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. On August 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
recommending that the Court dismiss count two but allow the petition to proceed on the remaining

19
counts. The Clerk of Court served Petitioner with a copy of the court order by mail. On September
20
21

22

4, 2014, the copy mailed to Petitioner was returned to the Clerk marked "undeliverable, name and ID
do not match."

23

Local Rule 183 provides:

24

A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties
advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria
persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such Plaintiff
fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days
thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice
for failure to prosecute.

25
26
27
28

///
1

1

More than sixty-three (63) days having elapsed since the return of the notice mailed to

2

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's having failed to advise the Court of his current address, it is hereby

3

RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

4
5
6

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill,
United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule
72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

7
California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written
8
9

objections with the court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

10

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the

11

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff advised that failure to file

12

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

13

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:

November 17, 2014

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2