Frank

Gabriel Armenta v. Robert Frank

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20252:24-cv-02075California365 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL ARMENTA, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-2075-TLN-CKD P 13 v. 14 ROBERT FRANK, ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Fabriel Armenta (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 7, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 9.) This deadline has passed, 23 and no objections have been filed. Although it appears from the docket that the copy of the 24 findings and recommendations sent to Plaintiff was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is 25 the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. 26 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f),…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.