1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND MARTIN, Case No. 2: 24-cv-2100-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and 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 pro per inform the court of any address change. More than sixty-three days 20 have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiff has failed to 21 notify the court of a current address.1 22 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 23 judge to this matter. 24 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice 25 for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 26 1 As of January 1, 2025, Local Rule 183 provides that “[i]f mail directed to a plaintiff in 27 propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the 28 Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 3 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 4 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 5 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 6 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 7 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 8 || Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 9 | 1991). 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ January 24, 2025 q-—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28