Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01605-2/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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL J. LANGE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J. KLARICH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01605-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 6)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Miguel J. Lange (“plaintiff”), a 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 Rule 72-302.

On May 4, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation herein which were served on plaintiff, in

Corcoran, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed

within fifteen (15) days. On June 5, 2006, the United States

Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff. A

notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Not

Case 1:05-cv-01605-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 09/26/06 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

27

28

2

deliverable as addressed. Therefore, the court re-served

plaintiff, in San Diego, with same on June 6, 2006. To date,

plaintiff has not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendation.

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 May 4, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED for plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01605-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2