Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01663/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01663-1/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

CHRISTOPHER DALE EASLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-1663 LKK KJM P

vs.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

A recent court order was served on plaintiff Easley’s address of record and

returned by the U.S. Postal Service. It appears that plaintiff Easley has failed to comply with

Local Rule 83-182(b), which requires that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court

of any address change. Therefore, the court will recommend that plaintiff Easley be dismissed.

On October 26, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff Withrow to show cause why this

action should not be dismissed because the Eastern District is not a proper venue for Withrow’s

claims. Withrow has not responded to the court’s order to show cause. Therefore, the court will

also recommend that plaintiff Withrow be dismissed from this action under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b) for failing to comply with court orders. 

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01663-LKK -KJM Document 13 Filed 05/03/06 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

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiffs Easley and Withrow be dismissed from this action; and

2. This case be closed.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiffs may file written

objections with the court. Each document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiffs are 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: May 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/mp

easl1663.33a

Case 2:05-cv-01663-LKK -KJM Document 13 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2