Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01471/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01471-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DARYL LEON HANSON, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

GEORGE W. BUSH, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1471-OWW-SMS 

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH THE ORDER OF THE COURT TO

PAY THE $350.00 FILING FEE OR, IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, TO FILE A

COMPLETE APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOCS. 3, 5)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 20, 2006.

However, Plaintiff neither paid the $350.00 filing fee nor filed

a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On November

2, 2006, the Court directed Plaintiff within thirty days of

service either to file a completed application to proceed in

forma pauperis or to pay the $350.00 filing fee. The Clerk’s

proof of service shows that the order and a blank in forma

pauperis application were mailed to Plaintiff at the address

listed in the docket on November 2, 2006. Thereafter, on December

22, 2006, when Plaintiff had failed to file timely either an

Case 1:06-cv-01471-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

application or the fee, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a

recommendation that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s

failure to pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed

in forma pauperis, comply with an order of the Court, or

otherwise prosecute the case. The findings and recommendation

were served on all parties on December 22, 2006, and contained

notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations

were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service

of the order. Over thirty days have passed, but no party has

filed any objections.

The docket reflects that the order to pay the filing fee and

the findings and recommendations were served by mail at the

address listed in the docket, but both documents were returned to

the Court marked as undeliverable, homeless, and/or not at this

address. (Docket entries 4, 6.) Local Rule 83-182(f) provides

that absent a notice of change of address, service of documents

at the prior address of a party or an attorney shall be fully

effective.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the report and recommendation are supported

by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed December 22, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

Case 1:06-cv-01471-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

prosecute; and

3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action

because this order terminates the action in its entirety.IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Emm0d6Dated: February 8, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01471-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 02/09/07 Page 3 of 3