Archer vs. Solano County, et al.

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/24/10 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. SOLANO COUNTY, et al., Defendants. / A recent court 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)(l). Within twentyone 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 1 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS LEO ARCHER, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0493 FCD DAD P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: May 24, 2010. DAD:kly arch0493.33a 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?