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)

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 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

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?