(PS) Watkins v. Pope et al, No. 2:2010cv00620 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/1/2011 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address and his failure to comply with applicable rules and court orders; Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due within 28 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Watkins v. Pope et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT LOUIS WATKINS, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0620 LKK DAD PS v. JAMIE POPE, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint against the California 17 Public Employees Retirement System and an individual named Jamie Pope. On May 17, 2011, 18 the court served upon plaintiff at his address of record an order granting plaintiff’s motion to 19 proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with thirty days’ leave to amend. 20 (Doc. No. 7.) The court’s records reflect that on May 27, 2011, plaintiff’s copy of the order was 21 returned to the court by the postal service marked “Undeliverable, RTS - Not deliverable as 22 addressed, unable to forward.” 23 It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182, which requires 24 every party, including any party proceeding in propria persona, to notify the court and all other 25 parties of any change of address. Local Rule 182(f). “Absent such notice, service of documents 26 at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.” Id. Failure to comply 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 with the court’s rules or with any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court 2 of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the court. 3 Local Rule 110. 4 Good cause appearing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 5 without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address and 6 his failure to comply with applicable rules and court orders. 7 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 8 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 twenty-eight days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 10 and serve written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled 11 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff’s failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 13 the District Court’s order regarding the findings and recommendations. See Martinez v. Ylst, 14 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: June 1, 2011. 16 17 18 19 DAD:kw ddad1\orders.prose\watkins0620.nca.f&r 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
