Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00023-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; and OFFICER GILBERT 

S. HALL, BADGE # 454, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0023 JAM AC (PS) 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff has been proceeding in this case pro se and in forma pauperis. The action was 

referred to the undersigned magistrate judge by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). 

 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 the court’s Local Rules, which require 

that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change within sixtythree days. E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 183(b). More than sixty-three 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 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 06/22/16 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

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The 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. Plaintiff is 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: June 22, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2