Case No. 05-60232.
February 23, 2006
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment, filed February 13, 2006. Plaintiff seeks relief from this court's order adopting the magistrate's report and recommendation and its judgment dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, entered February 3, 2006. Plaintiff contends that "the Judge was not actually conscious of the judgment and order" because they do not contain the judge's handwritten signature. The court assures Plaintiff that it was in fact aware of its February 3, 2006 order and judgment, which were issued in accordance with the electronic filing practices of the court. See Local Rule Appendix — ECF, R10 ("Any order signed electronically (with s/judge's name) shall have the same force and effect as if the judge had affixed his or her signature to a hard copy of the order and it had been entered on the docket in the traditional manner.").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's February 13, 2006 Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED.