Opinion
No. 2:11-cv-02316-GEB-DAD P
07-18-2012
CHARLES DAVID BERLINGHOFF, Plaintiff, v. MAX RUFFCORN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff is an inmate at the Shasta County Jail and proceeding pro se with a general negligence action. 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 April 26, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the findings and recommendations were returned, plaintiff was properly served. 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.
The court also notes that more than sixty-three days have passed since mail was returned and plaintiff has failed to notify the court of his current address. See Local Rule 183(b).
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 April 26, 2012, are adopted in full; and
2. This action is dismissed as barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971).
____________________________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge