(HC) Valencia v. Gipson, No. 1:2013cv01864 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: FINDINGS And RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That The Court Dismiss Case Without Prejudice For Failure To Prosecute (Doc. 18 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/17/2014. F&R's referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 12/8/2014. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LUIS ALBERTO VALENCIA, 10 Petitioner, 11 12 Case No. 1:13-CV-01864-LJO-SMS HC v. CONNIE GIPSON, 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Respondent. 14 15 16 17 18 On November 18, 2013, Petitioner Luis Alberto Valencia filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On August 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the Court dismiss count two but allow the petition to proceed on the remaining 19 counts. The Clerk of Court served Petitioner with a copy of the court order by mail. On September 20 21 22 4, 2014, the copy mailed to Petitioner was returned to the Clerk marked "undeliverable, name and ID do not match." 23 Local Rule 183 provides: 24 A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such Plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 25 26 27 28 /// 1 1 More than sixty-three (63) days having elapsed since the return of the notice mailed to 2 Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's having failed to advise the Court of his current address, it is hereby 3 RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 4 5 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill, United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 7 California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written 8 9 objections with the court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the 11 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff advised that failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 13 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: November 17, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
