Rotroff v. Robinson et al
Filing
70
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending 69 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss be Granted, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/1/11. Referred to Judge O'Neill; 14-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
DENIS K. ROTROFF,
CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01419-LJO-DLB PC
9
Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISMISS BE GRANTED
10
v.
11
JIM ROBINSON, et al.,
(DOC. 69)
12
Defendants.
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
13
14
15
/
16
17
18
Findings And Recommendations
Plaintiff Denis K. Rotroff (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee in the custody of the California
19
Department of Mental Health. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
20
rights action. This action was proceeding against Defendants Ben McClain, Jim Robinson, G.
21
Dieke, Charles Rabout, Sharon Rogers, and Mendoza. On February 25, 2011, notice of
22
settlement was filed. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this action, filed
23
April 15, 2011. Doc. 69. The Defendants have filed no response.
24
The parties’ settlement agreement was as follows: Defendants paid Plaintiff a specified
25
amount of money, and Plaintiff agreed to dismiss this action. The record reflects that Defendants
26
have complied with the terms of the settlement. See Defs.’ Response, Doc. 59. The Court
27
construes Defendants’ non-response as a waiver of opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.
28
There does not appear to be any reason why this action should not be closed.
1
1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
2
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, filed April 15, 2011, be GRANTED;
3
2.
This action be dismissed with prejudice; and
4
3.
The parties are to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.
5
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
6
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
7
(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file
8
written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
9
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections
10
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.
11
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:
77e0d6
June 1, 2011
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?