Smith v. Hawkins, 2:14-cv-2222-KJM-EFB P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160322899
Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state 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 302. On February 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations w
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state 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 302. On February 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations we..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state 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 302.
On February 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 29, 2016, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant's July 28, 2015 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is denied.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's copy of the findings and recommendations was returned by the Postal Service on March 8, 2016 marked "Paroled." It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. Further, if mail directed to such a plaintiff is returned by the postal service and plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties as required by the rule, the court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. E.D. Local Rule 183(b).
Source: Leagle
