Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01195/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01195-8/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

GERALD SPENCE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1195 LKK DAD P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 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 General Order No. 262.

On December 11, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Neither party

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned to the court as undeliverable, plaintiff was properly served with

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 138 Filed 01/12/07 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

 The docket reflects that the envelope was marked “Return to Sender, Unable to 1

Forward.”

2

the findings and recommendations. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of 1

his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(d), service of documents at a

party’s address of record is fully effective.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 11, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ July 7, 2006 motion for summary judgment is granted;

3. Defendants’ December 7, 2006 request for dismissal under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b) is also granted; and

4. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: January 12, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01195-LKK -DAD Document 138 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2