The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe United States District Judge
On May 1, 2008, Judge David R. Homer issued a Report-Recommendation and Order. Judge Homer granted the defendant dentist's motion to substitute the United States as party-defendant for defendant dentist (Dkt. No. 5) and denied Crudup's motion for remand and to amend the complaint (Dkt. No. 20). Judge Homer recommended that the defendant dentist's motion to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. No. 5) be granted and the complaint be dismissed in its entirety as to defendant dentist. Judge Homer further recommended that the case be remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, Schenectady County, for all further proceedings. See Dkt. No. 30. Crudup's copy of the Report-Recommendation and Order was returned as undeliverable - attempted not known. See Dkt. No. 31. Accordingly, it considers sua sponte Crudup's noncompliance with this District's Local Rules by failing to notify the court of his current address and by not prosecuting his action.
In relevant part, Local Rule ("L.R.") 10.1(b) provides: All ... pro se litigants must immediately notify the court of any change of address. The notice of change of address is to be filed with the clerk of the court and served on all other parties to the action. The notice must identify each and every action for which the notice shall apply.... (emphasis in original).
In turn, L.R. 41.2(b) provides that the "[f]ailure to notify the Court of a change of address in accordance with L.R. 10.1(b) may result in the dismissal of any pending action." For the orderly disposition of cases, it is essential that litigants honor their continuing obligation to keep the court informed of address changes. Michaud v. Williams,98cv1141,1999 WL 33504430, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 1999) (citing Fenza v. Conklin,177 F.R.D. 126 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (Pooler, then D.J.). As Judge Pooler has observed:
It is neither feasible nor legally required that the clerks of the district courts undertake independently to maintain current addresses on all parties to pending actions. It is incumbent upon litigants to inform the clerk of address changes, for it is manifest that communications between the clerk and the parties of their counsel will be conducted principally by mail. In addition to keeping the clerk informed of any change of address, parties are obliged to make timely status inquiries. Address changes normally would be reflected by those inquiries if made in writing.
Dansby v. Albany County Corr. Staff, 95cv1525, 1996 WL 172699, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Ap. 10, 1996) (citations omitted)).
As a matter of course, courts in this district have dismissed actions when litigants have failed to abide by either the Local Rules or orders related to address changes, and have subsequently failed to prosecute their actions. See Williams v. Faulkner,95cv741, 1998 WL 278288 (N.D.N.Y. May 20, 1998); Dansby, 1996 WL 172699, at *1; Fenza,177 F.R.D. at 126; cf. Michaud, 1999 WL 33504430, at *1. Nonetheless, the court will afford Crudup an additional fourteen days to comply.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that Crudup be granted FOURTEEN (14) days from the date of the filing of this order to submit his current address to the court and file any objections to the Report-Recommendation, if he so chooses, and it is further
ORDERED, that if Crudup fails to comply, the court will consider the Report-Recommendation as unopposed.