Brazier v. Beard et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Leave to Re-Serve Objections to Findings and Recommendations signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/22/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

KEVIN DEON BRAZIER,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,

1:13-cv-00787-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RE-SERVE
OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF No. 64)

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On January 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued
findings and recommendations to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
exhaustion grounds. (ECF No. 60.) Parties were given fourteen days to file their
objections.
On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff’s objections, dated January 24, 2017, were filed
with the Court. (ECF No. 63.) On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to
File and Serve an Amended Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendations.” (ECF No. 64.) Therein, Plaintiff does not seek leave to amend the
substance of his objections; rather, he seeks leave to re-serve his objections on

27
Defendants, as the copy he originally sent was returned by the post office after Plaintiff
28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

mistakenly mailed it to the wrong address.
Plaintiff correctly points out that defense counsel was timely served on February
10, 2017, when the objections were filed with the Court through the CM/ECF system.
Local Rule 135(a) (“’Service’ as utilized in these Rules includes electronic service as set
forth in the CM/ECF procedures in these Rules . . . . Service via this electronic Notice
constitutes service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E).”); see also Local Rule
135(g)(1) (completion of the attorney registration for electronic filing constitutes consent
to receive filings electronically unless the attorney affirmatively opts out.) Furthermore,
Defendants themselves acknowledge that they are in possession of Plaintiff’s objections.
(See D.’s Mot. for Extension (ECF No. 65) at 2) (“Plaintiff filed his Objections on
February 10, 2017.”) Plaintiff need do nothing further.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

February 22, 2017

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2