Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03318/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03318-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
State of California Employment Development Department
Defendant
Robert Terrell
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TERRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3318 GEB DAD PS

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

 /

By order filed December 3, 2009, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a new in

forma pauperis application that provides all required information. Plaintiff was cautioned that

failure to respond to the order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a properly

completed in forma pauperis application or responded in any way to the court’s order.

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

the court marked undeliverable, return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, and unable to

forward, plaintiff was properly served with the order. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep

the court apprised of a current address at all times. Local Rule 182(f). Absent notice of a party’s

change of address, service of documents at the party’s address of record is fully effective. Id.

Case 2:09-cv-03318-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/29/10 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

2

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to comply with Local Rule

182(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

These findings and recommendations will be 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, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 28, 2010.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\terrell3318.fifp

Case 2:09-cv-03318-GEB-DAD Document 4 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2