Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05423/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05423-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK LEE OSBORNE, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

TULARE COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPT., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-05423-REC-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 23),

DISMISSING ACTION AND

DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff, Jack Lee Osborne (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On March 9, 2006, the Court issued an Order dismissing the

Complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim on which

relief could be granted. Plaintiff, however, failed to file an

Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies outlined by the Court

in the Order. Thus, on April 18, 2006, the Magistrate Judge

filed Findings and Recommendations which were served on plaintiff

and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to

the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty

Case 1:03-cv-05423-REC -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/26/06 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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on May 1, 2006, as undeliverable. 

1

A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Paroled. 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). 

2

(20) days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections thereto.1

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 April 18, 2006,

are ADOPTED in full;

2. The Complaint, and therefore this action, is DISMISSED

based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s order of March

9, 2006, pursuant to Local Rule 11-110, and for failure to state

a claim on which relief can be granted;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment

for defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05423-REC -SMS Document 25 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2