Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06127/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06127-2/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 July 6, 2006, as undeliverable. 

1

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

CHARLENE DEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AUGUSTINE C. MEKKAM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-cv-06127-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 19)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Charlene Dee Davis (“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 June 20, 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 twenty (20) days. To

date, plaintiff has not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:02-cv-06127-OWW -DLB Document 22 Filed 08/08/06 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 June 20, 2006,

are ADOPTED in full; and,

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

obey the court’s order of May 2, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06127-OWW -DLB Document 22 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 2