Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01640-2/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 1

on May 3, 2006, as 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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH T. CASON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D.D. ORTIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01640-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Joseph T. Cason (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se 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 April 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendation herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that an objection to the Findings

and Recommendation, if any, was to be filed within fifteen days. 

To date, plaintiff has not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:05-cv-01640-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/25/06 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 prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 83-182(f).

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 April 17, 2006,

is ADOPTED in full; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of February 17,

2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01640-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2