Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02372/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02372-1/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

DANIEL GARCIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV 05-2372 GEB PAN P

vs.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed December 21, 2005, plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma

pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fees within thirty days and was cautioned that

failure to do so would result in this file being closed. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or

paid the appropriate filing fee. 

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

Case 2:05-cv-02372-GEB-EFB Document 9 Filed 03/22/06 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

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.” The parties 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: March 21, 2006.

/001; garc2372.fpf

Case 2:05-cv-02372-GEB-EFB Document 9 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2