Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01178/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01178-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Del Toro
Plaintiff
Fullerton
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on February 12, 2007, as 1

undeliverable. However, plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his address. Absent such notice,

service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL DEL TORO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FULLERTON, Baliff Superior

Court,

Defendant. 

 /

1:06-cv-01178-LJO-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff, Miguel Del Toro (“plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 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 January 26, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within fifteen (15)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:06-cv-01178-LJO -DLB Document 14 Filed 03/08/07 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

27

28

2

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 Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed January 26,

2007, are ADOPTED in full; and,

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

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01178-LJO -DLB Document 14 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2