Opinion
No. C02-4889 BZ.
April 22, 2003
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY OF ADDRESS CHANGE
In my January 28, 2003 Order, I gave plaintiff a fourth opportunity to amend his complaint in accordance with prior Orders. This Order, which was mailed to two different addresses, only one of which was on the docket, was returned by the Post Office from both addresses as undeliverable. A prior Order from December 5, 2002 was also returned as undeliverable. The Court made every effort, including a thorough search of the record to locate different addresses, to accomplish service of Orders on plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his address change in violation of Civil Local Rule 3-11.
Plaintiff has not filed any document in his case since October 2002. He has not filed an amended complaint as required in Orders dated October 9 and 16, 2002, December 5, 2002 and January 28, 2003. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case.
Plaintiff has consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. The Court does not require the consent of defendants to dismiss this case because defendants have not been served, and, as a result, are not parties under the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See, e.g., Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to notify the court of his address change.