(PS) Moorish Science Temple of America et al v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, No. 2:2018cv02094 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/6/2018 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute; Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Moorish Science Temple of America et al v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MOORISH SCIENCE TEMPLE OF AMERICA, et al. Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-2094 TLN GGH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se out of Chicago, Illinois, filed a complaint alleging breach of 19 contract (Pooling Servicing Agreement), among other things, ECF No. 1, along with a motion to 20 proceed in forma pauperis [“IFP”]. ECF No. 2. The magistrate judge to whom the matter was 21 referred issued an order on September 4, 2018, granting IFP status in part and dismissing the 22 complaint because the real party in interest cannot proceed without representation by counsel, and 23 because the filed complaint did not comply with the dictates of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24 8(a). ECF No. 3. In that order the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs a period of 45 days from 25 the date of the order to acquire counsel, and for that counsel to file an amended complaint in 26 conformity with the instructions provided in the Order. Id. at 6-7. 27 28 The Clerk of the Court served the order by mailing it to plaintiffs’ address of record on September 4, 2018, and on September 25, 2018 the mail was returned as undeliverable. It 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 therefore appears that plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that 2 a party appearing in pro se inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days 3 have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiffs have failed to 4 notify the Court of a current address. 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file written objections 10 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 11 and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 12 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 13 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 6, 2018 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
