(PC) Harr v. University of Southern California et al, No. 2:2016cv02224 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/16/16 ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Randomly assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Harr v. University of Southern California et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE ALAN HARR, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:16-cv-2224 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Recent documents served on plaintiff’s address of record were returned by the postal 18 service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that 19 a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixty- 20 three days have passed since the documents were returned by the postal service and plaintiff has 21 failed to notify the court of a current address. 22 23 24 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 4 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: December 16, 2016 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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.
