Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01360/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01360-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kia Automotive Motors, Inc.
Defendant
Benjamin Gavino Lira
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 

BENJAMIN GAVINO LIRA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KIA AUTOMOTIVE MOTORS, INC., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-1360 SCR P 

ORDER AND 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, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 

judge to this case. 

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied; and 

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. Cal. R. 

183(b). 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-01360-WBS-SCR Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 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 

 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 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: November 8, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01360-WBS-SCR Document 10 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 2