Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00278/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00278-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff, 2:06-cv-0278-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

LIEUTENANT D. DAVEY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former 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 General Order No. 262.

On December 12, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein 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 ten days. Neither party

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned to the court as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served with

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00278-GEB-DAD Document 29 Filed 09/06/07 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

1

 The docket reflects that the envelope was marked “Return to Sender, Unable to

Forward.”

2

the findings and recommendations.1 It is plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of

his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(d), service of documents at a

party’s address of record is fully effective.

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 December 12, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ September 25, 2006 motion to dismiss certain claims is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s state law Claims One and Three and federal Claims One, Two, and

Five are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies

before filing this suit;

4. Plaintiff’s federal Claim Six is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action

against defendant Abamonga; and

5. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110 as a sanction for failure to prosecute this action, failure to obey a court order, and

failure to comply with Local Rule 78-230(m).

Dated: September 5, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00278-GEB-DAD Document 29 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 2