PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

DISPOSITION

Antonio Strong ("Plaintiff") filed this pro se action on May 9, 2013, alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 2). On June 12, 2014, a Notice, Consent, and Reference to a Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 33) mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable (Doc. No. 36) and another address was noted on the envelope. On June 19, 2014, the Court entered an Order which was sent to the new and old addresses, directing Plaintiff to provide his current address within fourteen days (Doc. No. 37). Per that Order, Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his action without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 5.5 (c)(2)1 (Id.). In addition, Plaintiff was advised of Rule 5.5 in Orders dated August 13, 2013, and September 24, 2013 (Doc. Nos. 10, 24).

To date Plaintiff has failed to respond. In excess of fourteen days have passed since the Court directed Plaintiff to provide a new address. Pro se litigants must still comply with all relevant rules of procedure. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-835 n.46 (1975). Here, Plaintiff has failed to do so and the Court therefore recommends that his Complaint be DISMISSED.

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 2) be DISMISSED without prejudice;

2. All pending motions be DENIED as moot;

3. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good faith.