Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01780/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01780-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

GARY D. EASLEY, No. CIV.S-05-1780 FCD DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order filed January 9, 2006, plaintiff’s amended

complaint was dismissed and twenty days leave to file a second amended

complaint was granted. The time period has now expired, and plaintiff

has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

court’s order.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01780-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/03/06 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

Although it appears from the docket that plaintiff’s copy of

the order was returned as undeliverable, 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, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. See L.R. 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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)(1). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: February 3, 2006.

DAD:lg

ddad1/orders.prose/easley1780.fta

Case 2:05-cv-01780-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2