Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00315/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00315-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

THOMAS K. MILLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0315 LKK DAD P

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 23, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

recommending that this action be dismissed as duplicative. The findings and recommendations

were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. The findings and recommendations were

returned as undeliverable, but on April 4, 2005, it was reserved at a Delano, California address

which was provided on a letter filed by plaintiff on March 31, 2005 in case number CIV S-04-

2732 GEB CMK P. The findings and recommendations mailed to Delano, California has not

Case 2:05-cv-00315-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 06/07/05 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

been returned to the court as undeliverable. On April 18, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter requesting

copies of court forms and this letter indicated a Los Angeles post office address. On April 25,

2005, the court ordered the February 23, 2005 findings and recommendations served at the Los

Angeles address. These findings and recommendations were returned as undeliverable on May 3,

2005.

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations although

plaintiff was served at his address of record. In the interests of justice, the court also attempted

to serve plaintiff at other known addresses, although plaintiff did not file a notice of change of

address as required by Local Rule 83-182(f). It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court

apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of

documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 23, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: June 7, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

/mill0315.802

Case 2:05-cv-00315-LKK -DAD Document 10 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2