(HC) Armstrong v. People of the State of California, No. 2:2018cv01810 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/30/2022 RECOMMENDING that this action 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to Chief District Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Armstrong v. People of the State of California Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY JEROME ARMSTRONG, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:18-cv-1810 KJM AC P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 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 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 183(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections 2 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 3 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: June 30, 2022 5 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.
