(PS) Sherman v. Sun et al, No. 2:2010cv03120 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 4/7/11, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Case referred to Judge Burrell. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 14 days after service of the objections. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Sherman v. Sun et al Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH A. SHERMAN, Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV 2:10-cv-3120-GEB-JFM (PS) TING SUN, et al., 14 15 Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 A recent court order was served on plaintiff's address of record and returned by 17 the postal service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which 18 requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More 19 than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and 20 plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 21 22 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 24 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 25 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 26 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served 2 within fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 3 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 4 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: April 7, 2011. 6 7 8 9 /014;sher3120.33a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.
