Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01163/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01163-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

 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.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE DALTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1163 MCE EFB P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff originally filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. That petition was dismissed on July 9, 2007. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file a

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That order warned plaintiff that failure to comply

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now

expired, and plaintiff has not filed a complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 11-110.

////

Case 2:07-cv-01163-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 09/24/07 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 twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 24, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01163-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 2