Provolt v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/6/17 ORDERING that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER PROVOLT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0585 KJN P

v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C.

18
19

§ 636(c). By order filed October 26, 2016, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

20

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file an

21

amended complaint may result in the dismissal of this action. Thirty days passed, and plaintiff

22

did not file an amended complaint, or otherwise respond to the court’s order. On December 7,

23

2016, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff

24
25

was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current

26

address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of

27

the party is fully effective.

28

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.

2

See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

3

Dated: January 6, 2017

4
5
6
7
8

/prov0585.fsc

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2