Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00490/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00490-3/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

Plaintiff stated in his complaint that he expected to be released from 1

prison on June 16, 2006. It does not appear that any notice of change of

address has been filed by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), absent

a notice of change of address, service of documents at the prior address of a

party or an attorney shall be fully effective. The findings and recommendation

were served by mail at the address of Plaintiff as stated in the docket.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLIN MONROE, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, )

at al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00490-OWW-SMS 

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITH

PREJUDICE THE ACTION FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH AN ORDER OF THE COURT TO

FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

(DOCS. 6, 8)

Plaintiff is or was a state prisoner who is proceeding pro 1

se and in forma pauperis with an action for damages and other

relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The matter has

been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

On August 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a

recommendation that the first amended complaint be dismissed with

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/25/06 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

2

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. The findings

and recommendation were served on all parties on August 9, 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. No party filed any objections. 

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 findings and recommendation are

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed August 9, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 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: September 23, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00490-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2