Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02615/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02615-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

THOMAS BURTON WATSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV. S-04-2615 GEB KJM PS

vs.

COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed March 29, 2006, plaintiff was served with an application to

proceed in forma pauperis and was ordered to complete the application and file it within thirty

days. Plaintiff was cautioned that his failure to comply with the March 29th order would result

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. The thirty day period has

now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. 

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. As provided by Local Rule 83-182(d), 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 2:04-cv-02615-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/31/06 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 ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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 30, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wats2615.fifp

Case 2:04-cv-02615-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2