1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2: 20-cv-0154 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. RAM, 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 April 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. 23 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 24 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f),

25 1 On May 8, 2020, the April 29, 2020 findings and recommendations were returned as 26 undeliverable, marked “deceased.” Moreover, the inmate locator website for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) no longer lists plaintiff as housed in 27 CDCR custody. In light of plaintiff’s apparent death, it is impossible for him to prosecute this action. The undersigned has considered whether to appoint counsel to represent plaintiff’s estate, 28 but finds there are no exceptional circumstances for doing so in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 3 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 4 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 5 analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 29, 2020 are adopted in full; 8 2. This action is dismissed. 9 DATED: June 29, 2020 10 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 28 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).