Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00015/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00015-2/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 March 31, 2006, as 1

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Not at this address. 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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORO CAUTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

USA,

Defendant. 

 /

1:06-cv-00015-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 6),

DISMISSING ACTION AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, Floro Cauton (“plaintiff”), is a federal prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 March 15, 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-00015-REC -SMS Document 8 Filed 04/18/06 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

effective. See 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 March 15, 2006,

are ADOPTED in full;

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

comply with the court’s order of February 8, 2006, and for

failure to prosecute;

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

for defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00015-REC -SMS Document 8 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2