Nunes et al v. County of Stanislaus et al
Filing
98
ORDER ADOPTING 97 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of the Minors' Compromise, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/21/2022. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANGELA NUNES, et al.,
12
No. 1:17-cv-00633-DAD-SAB
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,
15
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF
THE MINORS’ COMPROMISE
Defendants.
(Doc. Nos. 91, 97)
16
On May 5, 2017, plaintiffs Angelina Nunes, Emanuel Alves, and minors D.X. and L.X. by
17
18
and through their guardian ad litem Angelina Nunes (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed the pending
19
action against defendants County of Stanislaus, Kristen Johnson, and Eric Anderson, asserting
20
that the minors were wrongfully removed from the custody of their parents. (Doc. No. 1.) This
21
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
22
Local Rule 302.
On March 21, 2022, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking approval of the parties’ settlement
23
24
and minors’ compromise.1 (Doc. No. 91.) On May 17, 2022, defendants filed a statement of non-
25
26
27
28
1
The parties filed a nearly identical petition in the related action Nunes v. County of Stanislaus,
No. 19-cv-00204-DAD-SAB (Nunes II), because the parties’ settlement resolves both actions.
The assigned magistrate judge issued separate findings and recommendations on the docket in
Nunes II to address that petition, and the undersigned will issue on order on the docket in Nunes II
to address those findings and recommendations.
1
1
opposition to the pending petition. (Doc. No. 95.) On May 31, 2022, the assigned magistrate
2
judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiffs’ petition for approval of
3
the minors’ compromise be granted and that the parties’ settlement be approved. (Doc. No. 97 at
4
9.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed
5
within fourteen (14) days. To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been
6
filed, and the time in which to do so has passed.
7
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
8
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
9
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
10
Accordingly:
11
1.
12
13
adopted in full;
2.
14
15
The findings and recommendations issued on May 31, 2022 (Doc. No. 97) are
Plaintiffs’ petition to approve settlement of the minors’ claims (Doc. No. 91)
is granted;
3.
The parties are directed to file a stipulation for dismissal or a request for dismissal
16
of this action, consistent with the parties’ settlement, within fourteen (14) days
17
from the date of this order; and
18
4.
19
20
21
22
This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
June 21, 2022
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?