Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01046-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The United States Postal Service returned the order served on plaintiff on October 2, 2006, as 1

undeliverable. A notation on the envelope simply indicated: Return to Sender. However, plaintiff has not notified

the court of any change in his address. Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. See

Local Rule 83-182(f). 

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON KITTLES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

H. LAPIN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 19)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 15)

Plaintiff, Vernon Kittles (“plaintiff”), is a federal

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

action seeking relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On September 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within fifteen (15)

days. To date, the parties have not filed objections thereto.1

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 6,

2006, are ADOPTED in full; and,

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED,

without prejudice to refiling at a later date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01046-OWW-DLB Document 23 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2