Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01860/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01860-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

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

KENNETH SMITH, No. CIV.S-06-1860 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GLINDA PAGE, Parole Officer,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order filed December 20, 2006, plaintiff’s complaint was

dismissed and twenty days leave to file an amended complaint was

granted. The time period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed

an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

In addition, it appears from the docket that plaintiff’s

copy of the order sent to his address of record was returned as

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 01/18/07 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

2

undeliverable. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court

apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule

83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is

fully effective. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. See L.R. 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: January 17, 2007.

DAD:lg

ddad1/orders.prose/smith1860.fta.nca

Case 2:06-cv-01860-LKK -DAD Document 6 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2