Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00355-1/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

27

28

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on June 21, 2005, as 1

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Attempted Not Known. 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). 

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW B. CRAMER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00355-REC-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 5)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Matthew B. Kramer (“plaintiff”), is proceeding

pro se 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 June 10, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the Findings

and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty (30) days. To

date, plaintiff has not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:05-cv-00355-REC-DLB Document 7 Filed 09/08/05 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

2

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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed June 10, 2005,

are ADOPTED in full; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED based on plaintiff’s failure

to obey the court’s order of April 1, 2005.

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

for defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00355-REC-DLB Document 7 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 2