1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND C. WATKINS, No. 1:18-cv-00787-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY and GUARDS, ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, TO PROSECUTE, AND TO 15 Defendants. FOLLOW A COURT ORDER 16 (Doc. No. 10) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Raymond C. Watkins is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights 20 action brought pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On October 30, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations, recommending that the case be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 24 claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 10.) The findings 25 and recommendation were served on both parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 || were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service.! (Jd. at 2.) No objections have 2 | been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 | de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that 5 | the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 10) issued on October 30, 2019 are 8 adopted in full; 9 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiffs failure to state a claim, failure to 10 prosecute, and failure to obey a court order; and 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. ame 13 \ 14 Dated: _ March 30, 2020 eee Ae UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | | The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff but returned to the court as 26 | undeliverable. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address with the court. Plaintiff, as a pro se party “is responsible for keeping the Court informed of his current address; absent filing a 27 | notice of change of address, service at the prior address is fully effective. Pogue v. Hedgpeth, No. 1:11-CV-00192-LJO,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014) (citing Local Rule 28 | 182(f)).