Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801-7/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

 On November 2, 2005, the United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on October 1

31, 2005, as undeliverable for unknown reasons as there was no notation on the envelope. 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

JESUS CEBALLOS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AARON FOUCH,

Defendant. 

 /

1:03-cv-05801-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 43)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Jesus Ceballos (“plaintiff”), is a former state

prisoner 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 31, 2005, 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 fifteen (15) days. 

To date, plaintiff has not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 11/30/05 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

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 October 31,

2005, are ADOPTED in full; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED based on plaintiff’s failure

to obey the court’s order of September 21, 2005, and failure to

prosecute the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 45 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2