Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05257/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05257-2/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 October 31, 2006, as 1

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Inmate Paroled. 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

HENRY J. LUGO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Defendant. 

 /

1:04-cv-05257-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT/

ACTION

Henry J. Lugo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis in 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 October 24, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which

contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendations were to be filed within eleven (11) days. To

date, Plaintiff has not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 12/19/06 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 Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 24,

2006, are ADOPTED in full; and,

2. The Complaint, and therefore this action, is DISMISSED

based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s Order of July

27, 2006, and pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in

accordance with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05257-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 2