Gonzalez v. Razo et al

Filing 162

ORDER ADOPTING 161 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Denying 149 Motion, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/24/19. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ, 12 No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. RAZO, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. Nos. 149, 161) Defendants. 16 17 Manuel Antonio Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 This case was closed on January 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 145) following a stipulation for 21 voluntary dismissal with prejudice that was signed by counsel for both parties and filed with the 22 court on January 29, 2019. (Doc. No. 144). On February 21, 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se motion 23 to enforce settlement agreement, full payment to attorney, and/or to allow plaintiff to withdraw 24 settlement and proceed with trial. (Doc. No. 149.) 25 On August 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 26 recommending that plaintiff’s motion be denied. The findings and recommendations explained 27 that plaintiff had not established extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the court’s 28 order closing the case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of voluntary dismissal given defendant’s 1 1 compliance with the settlement agreement and the absence of any showing by plaintiff that his 2 consent to the settlement agreement was obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue 3 influence. (Doc. No. 161.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 4 contained notice that any objections thereto where to be filed within fourteen days after service. 5 (Id. at 8.) To date, objections have not been filed, and the time in which to do so has since 6 passed.1 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 8 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court find the findings 9 and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The August 29, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 161) are adopted in 12 full; 2. Plaintiff’s pro se motion to enforce settlement agreement, full payment to attorney, 13 14 and/or to allow plaintiff to withdraw settlement and proceed with trial. (Doc. No. 149) 15 is denied; and 16 17 3. As indicated in the January 30, 2019 order (Doc. No. 145), this case is closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 24, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The court notes that according to a docket entry on September 9, 2019, the copy of the findings and recommendations mailed to plaintiff at his institution of confinement was returned to the court by the U.S. Postal Service marked as undeliverable because it was “refused.” The court also notes that plaintiff’s counsel of record has apparently not been substituted out as plaintiff’s counsel of record, nor has plaintiff filed a notice of appearance indicating that he wishes to represent himself in this action in place of his counsel of record. In any event, the August 29, 2019 findings and recommendations were also served on plaintiff’s counsel of record who has not filed any objections thereto. 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?