Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00358/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00358-1/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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on June 1, 2005, as undeliverable. 

A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender -Not in Custody. 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

CARL FRENCH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAROL A. DAILY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00358-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 6)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Carl French (“plaintiff”), a prisoner housed at

the Fresno County Jail, is 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 May 24, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was 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 1:05-cv-00358-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 07/01/05 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 May 24, 2005,

is ADOPTED in full; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on

plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of April 8, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00358-OWW -SMS Document 8 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 2