Ostapenko v. Meyer et al

Filing 12

ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/6/2015 DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner's failure to prosecute. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

VIKTOR NIKOLAYEVICH
OSTAPENKO,
Petitioner,
v.
CRAIG MEYER et al.,

No. 2:14-cv-1176 DAD P

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

17
18

A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned to the court

19

by the postal service as undeliverable. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local

20

Rule 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any

21

address change. More than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the

22

postal service and petitioner has failed to notify the court of a current address.

23
24
25
26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to
randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice
due to petitioner’s failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b).

27

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

28

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
1

1

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

2

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

3

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within

4

fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

5

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

6

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

7

Dated: January 6, 2015

8
9
10
11

DAD:9
osta1176.133a

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2