Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01648/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01648-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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 

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB TRS 

CORP., et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1648 JAM AC PS (TEMP) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, Michael Williams, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred 

to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 On April 20, 2016, the assigned District Judge issued an order granting plaintiff’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. (ECF No. 16.) Court records reflect that on May 3, 2016, 

plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned to the court by the postal service as undeliverable, 

return to sender. 

 It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 182, which requires every 

party, including any party proceeding pro se, to notify the court and all other parties of any 

change of address. Local Rule 182(f). “Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior 

address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective.” Id. Failure to comply with the 

Court’s rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 

Case 2:15-cv-01648-JAM-DB Document 19 Filed 07/20/16 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

and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the Court. Local 

Rule 110. 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address and his failure 

to comply with applicable rules and Court orders. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: July 20, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01648-JAM-DB Document 19 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 2