Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01622-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY ALONZO

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1622-GEB-CMK

vs.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

Secretary of the Department of 

Veteran’s Affairs

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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 January 11, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 45 Filed 06/05/06 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

 With the objections, plaintiff has submitted new evidence in the form of statements by 1

plaintiff, four affidavits from plaintiff, a letter to the VA counsel and several memos, and

questions to witnesses. While a district court judge may receive additional evidence under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) when determining whether to accept or reject a magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations, the court exercises its discretion and declines to consider the new

evidence, as plaintiff has not provided any reason why the evidence was not submitted during the

two month period the summary judgment motion was pending before the magistrate judge issued

the findings and recommendations. U.S. v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622-23 (9 Cir. 2000), cert.

th

denied, 534 U.S. 831 (2001) (district court judge has discretion to reject evidence submitted after

findings and recommendations have issued). 

2

 objections to the findings and recommendations; the undersigned has considered the objections

and has determined there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the

points raised in the objections.

1

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 January 11, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated: June 2, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 45 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2