Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02565/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02565-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linda Guirbino
Defendant
Sahota
Defendant
Ramon Watkins
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

RAMON WATKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LINDA GUIRBINO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2565-MCE-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 23, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and found 

service appropriate for defendants Guirbino and Sahota. That order gave plaintiff 30 days to 

submit the documents necessary for service of process on defendants and warned plaintiff that 

failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of this case. The time for acting has 

passed and plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s order.1

///// 

///// 

///// 

 1

 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 

was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 

address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 

the party is fully effective. 

Case 2:13-cv-02565-MCE-EFB Document 13 Filed 06/04/15 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

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 

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.” 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 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: June 3, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-02565-MCE-EFB Document 13 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 2