Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01015/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01015-2/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

27

28

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on Plaintiff on December 28, 2006, as 1

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Out of Custody. However, Plaintiff has not

notified the court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully

effective. See Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANTE LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MACK WIMBISH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01015-LJO-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 7)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

Dante Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se

with this civil rights action pursuant to 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 Rule 72-302.

On December 13, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within fifteen (15)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:06-cv-01015-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 04/13/07 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed December 13,

2006, are ADOPTED in full; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01015-LJO -SMS Document 11 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2