(PC) Dubrin et al v. Bonilla

Filing 172

ORDER Adopting #167 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DENYING Plaintiff Hall's Request to Rescind Settlement signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

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
16

No. 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT
Plaintiffs,

v.
MICHAEL STAINER et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF HALL’S REQUEST TO
RESCIND SETTLEMENT

Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 155, 159, 160, 167, 168, 170)

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 April 6, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

23

recommending that plaintiffs Joaquin Coronado and Aaron Prange be dismissed from this action

24

due to their failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. No. 167.) That recommendation was based

25

upon the fact the court had granted their counsel’s motion to withdraw because the two plaintiffs

26

had ceased communicating with their counsel and then failed to respond to the court’s order to

27

show cause as to why they should not be dismissed as having abandoned the litigation. (Id.) The

28

day after the findings and recommendations were issued, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to
1

1

vacate his motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Coronado because the two had resumed

2

contact. (Doc. No. 160.) Consequently, on May 2, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an order (1)

3

striking its prior order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw—solely as to plaintiff Coronado;

4

(2) discharging its prior order to show cause—solely as to plaintiff Coronado; and (3) striking

5

portions of the findings and recommendations—solely as to plaintiff Coronado. (Doc. No. 170.)

6

That order was served on the same date and gave plaintiff Prange twenty-one additional days in

7

which to file objections to the April 6, 2017 findings and recommendations. (Id.) Despite lapse

8

of more than the allowed time, no objections have been filed. Local Rule 304(b) & (d).

9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

10

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

11

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

12

Accordingly,

13

1. The April 7, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 167) are adopted as
modified by the court’s May 2, 2017 (Doc. No. 170);

14
15

2. Plaintiff Aaron Prange and all claims brought on his behalf are dismissed with

16
17

prejudice from this action due to his failure to prosecute this action;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate plaintiff Aaron Prange from the docket

18
19

of this action;
4. The remaining parties are ordered to file a joint status report within thirty days of the

20
21
22

date of service of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 13, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2