Carter v. Uhlik, et al.

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 20 Motion to rescind Settlement Agreement signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/2/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL CARTER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. UHLIK, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO RESCIND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 20, 21) 16 17 No. 1:16-cv-01202-DAD-SAB Plaintiff pursued this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and 19 the case was closed on that same date. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) On June 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a 20 motion to rescind the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 20.) On June 21, 2017, the assigned 21 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion to 22 rescind the settlement agreement be denied. (Doc. No. 21.) The findings and recommendations 23 were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 24 fourteen days. To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 26 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 28 proper analysis. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued June 21, 2017 (Doc. No. 21) are adopted in full; and 2. Plaintiff’s motion to rescind the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 20) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 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?