Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06629/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06629-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francis McArthur
Plaintiff
Pleasant Valley State Prison
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 14, 2006, as 1

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope indicated: Return to Sender - Inmate no longer here. 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

FRANCIS McARTHUR,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON,

Defendant. 

 /

1:02-cv-06629-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 22)

ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION

Plaintiff, Francis McArthur (“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 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

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

Case 1:02-cv-06629-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 03/16/06 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

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 Recommendations, filed January 31,

2006, are ADOPTED in full; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim on which relief can be

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06629-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2