Ardell v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 10

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 02/05/13 recommending that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KENNETH SMITH ARDELL,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-2488 LKK EFB P

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

16
17

Plaintiff proceeds pro se with this civil action. This proceeding was referred to this court

18

by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November 30, 2012, the postal service

19

returned documents directed to plaintiff as “undeliverable, Not deliverable as addressed.”
A party appearing without counsel must keep the court and all parties apprised of his

20
21

current address. L.R. 183(b). If mail directed to a plaintiff is returned by the postal service and

22

plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within 63 days thereafter of her current

23

address, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. More

24

than 63 days have passed since the postal service returned the mail and plaintiff has not notified

25

the court of his current address.

26

////
1

1
2

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110, 183(b).

3

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

4

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

5

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

6

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

7

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

8

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

9

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

Dated: February 5, 2013.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2