Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00196/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00196-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 1

 This action was reassigned to the undersigned on August 29, 2006. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE P. SALEMO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0196 MCE EFB PS

vs.

E*TRADE SECURITIES, LLC,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 9,

2005, the district judge adopted the findings and recommendations of the previously assigned 

magistrate judge, and ordered the proceedings stayed pending completion of arbitration

proceedings.1

 

On June 29, 2007, this court issued an order directing the parties to file a report regarding

the status of the action. On July 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a statement indicating that the National

Association of Securities Dealers had completed arbitration proceedings on February 15, 2007,

and that a written decision was forthcoming. On April 23, 2008, the court issued an order

Case 2:04-cv-00196-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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 2

 The order was returned as undeliverable on June 17, 2008, and June 30, 2008. 

2

directing the parties to apprise the court of the status of the arbitration proceedings. Defendant

responded to that order with a status report indicating that the arbitration had been decided in its

favor, and attached as an exhibit to its report a copy of the arbitrators’ final award. Defendant

also requested that the court dismiss this action without prejudice because all questions presented

in the amended complaint had been resolved through binding arbitration.

Plaintiff did not respond to defendant’s request for dismissal, nor did he file the status

report as ordered. On May 22, 2008, the court’s April 23, 2008, order was returned as

undeliverable. Plaintiff is obliged to keep the court apprised of his address. See Local Rule 83-

183(b) (“a party, appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised

as to his or her current address). That rule further provides that “[i]f mail directed to a plaintiff

in 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 sixty (60) days thereafter of a current address, the

Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. Additionally. Local

Rule 11-110 provides for imposition of sanctions on a party for failure to comply with rules and

orders of the court.

On June 13, 2008, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to file within twenty days a

written response to defendant’s request for dismissal or to otherwise show cause why this action

should not be dismissed for the previous failures to comply with court orders and the rules of

court. That order admonished plaintiff that failure to file a timely response would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time for responding to that order has expired,

and plaintiff has failed to file any response or to take any steps to apprise the court of his current

address..2

 It appears that plaintiff has abandoned the case.

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00196-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rules 11-110

and 83-183(b). 

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

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

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 ten (10) 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 11, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00196-MCE -EFB Document 48 Filed 08/11/08 Page 3 of 3