Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01915/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01915-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1915 LKK GGH PS

vs.

ROSEMARY CROSSLAND,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed December 5, 2006, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty

days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. In that order, the court informed plaintiff

of the deficiencies in his complaint. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not

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

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned,

plaintiff was properly served. 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.

For the reasons given in the December 5, 2006, order, IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

Case 2:06-cv-01915-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 02/20/07 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

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)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 2/20/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

smit1915.fta

Case 2:06-cv-01915-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 2