Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00537/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00537-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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 

KEITH JUDD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARACK OBAMA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0537 KJM AC PS 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 A recent court order was served on plaintiff’s address of record and returned by the postal 

service. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 183(b), which requires that 

a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. More than sixtythree days have passed since the court order was returned by the postal service and plaintiff has 

failed to notify the court of a current address. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 183(b). 

 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 response to the 

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

Case 2:13-cv-00537-KJM-AC Document 9 Filed 07/01/14 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

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 1, 2014 

 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00537-KJM-AC Document 9 Filed 07/01/14 Page 2 of 2