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)
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?