Willis v. Lappin et al

Filing 86

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78 ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, for Lack of Jurisdiction 66 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/18/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES R. WILLIS,

12
13
14

1:09-cv-01703-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 78.)

vs.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Doc. 66.)

DEVERE,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

James R. Willis (APlaintiff@) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff filed this

20

case on September 28, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This case proceeded on Plaintiff’s Third Amended

21

Complaint, filed on July 8, 2011, against defendant Devere (“Defendant”) for failure to protect

22

Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 24.) On May 20, 2013, the court

23

dismissed this action with prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal and Rule

24

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 64.)

25

Plaintiff then filed a Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to enforce the parties’ settlement

26

agreement. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

27
1

28

On March 19, 2013, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing all other claims and
defendants from this action. (Doc. 60.)
1

1

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 15, 2014, findings and recommendations were

2

entered, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to enforce the parties’ settlement

3

agreement be denied for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 78.) On February 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed

4

objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 79.) On February 13, 2014, Defendant

5

filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 80.)

6

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

7

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

8

including Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant’s reply, the Court finds the findings and

9

recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

10

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

11

1.

12
13
14

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on January
15, 2014, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement,
filed on July 22, 2013, is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2