Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02222-13/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BERNARD SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HAWKINS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2222-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 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 302. 

 On February 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.1

 1

 Plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned by the Postal Service 

on March 8, 2016 marked “Paroled.” It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised 

of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the 

record address of the party is fully effective. Further, if mail directed to such a plaintiff is 

returned by the postal service and plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties as 

required by the rule, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

E.D. Local Rule 183(b). 

Case 2:14-cv-02222-KJM-EFB Document 45 Filed 03/21/16 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

 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 29, 2016, are adopted in full; and 

 2. Defendant’s July 28, 2015 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is denied. 

DATED: March 21, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-02222-KJM-EFB Document 45 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 2