(PC) Melnyk v. California Director of Corrections et al, No. 2:2009cv02969 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/4/09 ORDERING the clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for pltf's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. Assigned and Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due w/in 20 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Melnyk v. California Director of Corrections et al Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD ROBERT MELNYK, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2969 DAD P vs. CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ORDER AND 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Recent new case documents were served on plaintiff's address of record and 17 returned by the postal service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 83- 18 182(f), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address 19 change. 20 21 22 23 Accordingly, IT HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action; IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 83-182(f) and 11-110. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 26 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 2 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 3 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 4 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: November 4, 2009. 6 7 8 9 DAD:mp meln2969.33a 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.
