(PC) Bernard L. Smith v. Hawkins, No. 2:2014cv02222 - Document 45 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/21/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL 44 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 28 Motion to Dismiss. (Michel, G.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Bernard L. Smith v. Hawkins Doc. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BERNARD SMITH, 12 13 14 No. 2:14-cv-2222-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER HAWKINS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 24 1 25 26 27 28 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). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 3 ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 29, 2016, are adopted in full; and 5 2. Defendant’s July 28, 2015 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is denied. 6 DATED: March 21, 2016 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
