Armstrong v. People of the State of California

Filing 15

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/30/2022 RECOMMENDING that this action 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to Chief District Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY JEROME ARMSTRONG,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-1810 KJM AC P

Petitioner,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ROBERT NEUSCHMID,
Respondent.

16
17

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

18

postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which

19

requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More

20

than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and

21

petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address.

22
23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for without
prejudice for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 183(b).

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

DATED: June 30, 2022

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2