Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02455/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02455-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

 The docket reflects that on April 14, 2005, the findings and recommendations mailed to 1

plaintiff were returned as “undeliverable (unable to forward),” and on April 15, 2005, defendant filed

a notice of recent communication which attaches a letter from plaintiff to defense counsel, stating

that she is in the Philippines and requesting that counsel “re-set” all hearings until July 1, 2005. The

court’s January 24 and February 25, 2005 orders were also returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has

failed to keep the court apprised of her change of address, in violation of E. D. Local Rule 83-183(b).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NENA P. FOUST,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2455 DFL GGH PS

vs.

UNITED AIRLINES,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 11, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.1

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

Case 2:04-cv-02455-DFL-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 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

2

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 11, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal.

1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 6/10/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02455-DFL-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2