Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00563-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on Plaintiff on November 27, 2006, as 1

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Cannot Locate/Refused. 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

BENITO FEBRE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEO GROUP INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00563-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Benito Febre (“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 November 14, 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 1:05-cv-00563-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 12/20/06 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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed November 14,

2006, are ADOPTED in full; and,

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

prosecute and because the Complaint fails to state a claim for

relief.

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in

accordance with this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00563-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2