FARR v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD

Full title: SOLOMON FARR, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 24, 2005

No. 2:05-cv-0847-GEB-DAD-PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2005)

Opinion

No. 2:05-cv-0847-GEB-DAD-PS.

October 24, 2005

ORDER

GARLAND BURRELL Jr., District Judge

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On September 9, 2005, 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 twenty 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 was 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 83-182(d), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

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 September 9, 2005, are adopted in full; and

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