Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06239/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06239-2/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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELAM URIAH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LEA ANN CHRONES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06239-REC-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 34)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, Elam Uriah (“plaintiff”), is 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 19, 2005, 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)

Case 1:04-cv-06239-REC-DLB Document 38 Filed 12/02/05 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

27

28

 On November 3, 2005, the United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on October 1

19, 2005, as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Attempted Not Known. 

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). 

2

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

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 October 19,

2005, are ADOPTED in full;

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

prosecute.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

for defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06239-REC-DLB Document 38 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2