Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00564/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00564-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Jones
Plaintiff
Stephen Lipworth
Defendant

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

STEVEN JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0564 MCE EFB PS

vs.

STEPHEN LIPWORTH,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On July 24, 2006, the court issued an order directing the Clerk to send plaintiff

the forms necessary for the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process. That order was served on

plaintiff's address of record and returned as undeliverable by the postal service. Service cannot

be properly effected without the plaintiff providing the needed information by completing the

forms. It appears that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 83-182(f), which requires

all parties, including a party appearing in propria persona, to inform the court of any address

change. Without plaintiff’s participation this action cannot proceed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice for plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules

83-182(f) and 11-110.

///

Case 2:06-cv-00564-MCE -EFB Document 12 Filed 09/19/06 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

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 ten days

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

with the court. 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, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 19, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00564-MCE -EFB Document 12 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2