Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rickey Donnell Boyd v. Barron

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION


January 18, 2011

RICKEY DONNELL BOYD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BARRON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David O. Carter United States District Judge

AMENDED ORDER

(1) ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND

(2) DISMISSING THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint and all other papers along with the attached Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and has made a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation.

Judgment dismissing the First Amended Complaint was entered on July 27, 2010. [Docket No. 44.]

Due to a systems error, the Court reopened the case on November 22, 2010. [Docket No. 45.] Plaintiff was re-served with copies of the "Notice of Filing of Report and Recommendation" [Docket No. 41], "Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge" granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and advising Plaintiff that Objections were due 20 days later [Docket No. 42], and an "Order Vacating Judgment" [Docket No. 45].

On December 13, 2010, the Court received the mail addressed to Plaintiff returned with a notation "Return to Sender" and "Discharged From CDCR Custody. No Forwarding.". (Docket No. 47.)

On December 16, 2010, the Court issued a Minute Order advising Plaintiff that Judgment had been vacated and granting Plaintiff twenty days from the date of the Minute Order in which to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 46].

On January 3, 2011, the Court received the mail addressed to Plaintiff once again returned with a notation "Return to Sender" and "I/M Discharged. No Forwarding Address on File.". (Docket No. 48.)

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Central District of California's Local Rule 41-6. Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address further supports dismissing the First Amended Complaint and entire action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a Judgment be entered (1) approving and adopting the Report and Recommendation, (2) granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and (3) dismissing the First Amended Complaint, and entire action, with prejudice.

20110118

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.