Bridgette v. Runnels

Full title: GEORGE BRIDGETTE, Plaintiff, v. D. RUNNELS, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 28, 2006

No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P.

September 28, 2006

ORDER

DAVID LEVI, District Judge

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 5, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and a supporting declaration.¹

1 By order filed May 31, 2006, plaintiff was given an additional period of thirty days in which to file and serve objections. Plaintiff's objections were timely filed on June 5, 2006. It does not appear that the findings and recommendations were served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. Plaintiff is required to serve all documents in this action conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. See Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by mailing a copy of the document to the attorney's address of record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants' attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 5, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendants' November 16, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted and judgment is entered in their favor.