Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05255/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05255-2/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

RAYMOND MARSHALL, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

T.D. STARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05255-REC-LJO-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 9)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Raymond Marshall (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 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 Rule 72-302.

On May 3, 2005, the Court issued an Order dismissing the

Complaint with leave to amend for Plaintiff’s failure to state a

claim for relief. Plaintiff, however, did not file an Amended

Complaint. Thus, on June 10, 2005, the court issued Findings and

Recommendations herein 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 (20) days. To

Case 1:04-cv-05255-REC-LJO Document 11 Filed 07/14/05 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

27

28

1

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on June 17, 2005, as undeliverable. 

A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Forwarding Order/Time Expired. 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

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 June 10, 2005,

are ADOPTED in full; and,

2. The complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

for relief and failure to comply with a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05255-REC-LJO Document 11 Filed 07/14/05 Page 2 of 2