(PC) Weaver v. Gillen, No. 2:2010cv03407 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/4/2012 RECOMMEDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Weaver v. Gillen Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIE WEAVER, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-3407 KJM DAD P vs. GUY GILLEN, Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by 17 the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local 18 Rule 183(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any 19 address change. More than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the 20 postal service and 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: January 4, 2012. 6 7 8 9 DAD:4 weav3407.33a 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.
