(HC)Collins v. Hainline, No. 2:2017cv00692 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/22/2018 ORDERING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this action and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC)Collins v. Hainline Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANTE C. COLLINS, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-0692 DB P Petitioner, v. PATTI HAINLINE, 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 16 17 A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and returned by the 18 postal service. It appears that petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(f), which 19 requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More 20 than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and 21 petitioner has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 22 23 24 25 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court IS HEREBY ORDERED to assign a district judge to this action; and IT IS HEREBY 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, any party 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.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 3 fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 5 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: January 22, 2018 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DLB:9 DB/prisoner-habeas/coll0692.133a 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.
