Dubrin et al v. Bonilla

Filing 171

ORDER Adopting 162 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING Plaintiff Hall's 161 Request to Rescind Settlement signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/10/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUBRIN et al., 12 13 14 15 No. 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL STAINER et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING PLAINTIFF HALL’S REQUEST TO RESCIND SETTLEMENT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 161, 162) 16 17 18 19 This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, involving multiple plaintiffs and 20 multiple defendants, which was filed on September 2, 2011. The matter was referred to a United 21 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 28, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 23 recommending that the court deny plaintiff Tony Hall’s motion to rescind his agreement to the 24 settlement of this action which were served on the parties and contained notice that objections 25 thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. No. 162.) Despite lapse of more than the 26 allowed time, no objections have been filed. 27 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 1 1 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 2 Accordingly, 3 1. The February 28, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 162) are adopted in 4 5 full; and 2. Plaintiff Hall’s motion to rescind his agreement to the settlement (Doc. No. 161) is 6 7 8 denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 10, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 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?