Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS D. FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. HERRERA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-DB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE 

(Doc. No. 14)

Plaintiff Nicholas D. Flores is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 13, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 14.) Specifically, the service copy of the 

court’s order dated August 25, 2023 (Doc. No. 13), which was mailed to plaintiff at his address of 

record, had been returned to the court marked as “Undeliverable, Vacant” on September 1, 2023. 

The plaintiff was required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than 

November 9, 2023. Because plaintiff had not done so, the magistrate judge concluded that 

plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b)’s requirement “that a party appearing in 

propria persona inform the court of any address change.” (Doc. No. 14 at 1.) 

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 02/01/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

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

The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail at his address 

of record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 

days after service.1 (Id. at 1–2.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations 

have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 13, 2023 (Doc. No. 14) 

are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

this action; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 The service copy of the findings and recommendations was also returned to the court marked as 

“Undeliverable, Vacant” on November 20, 2023. A party appearing without counsel must keep 

the court and all parties apprised of his current address. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(b). If mail directed to 

such a plaintiff is returned by the postal service, and plaintiff fails to notify the court and 

opposing parties within 63 days thereafter of his current address, the court may dismiss the action 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. Plaintiff has yet to advise the court of his current 

address as required by Local Rule 183(b), and the time for doing so has passed.

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 02/01/24 Page 2 of 2