Willard v. Waddle

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 33 Motion to Reopen and 34 Motion for Copies at MOOT signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/11/2020. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA A. WILLARD,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 1:17-cv-01425-DAD-GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
MOTION TO REOPEN AND MOTION FOR
COPIES AS MOOT

C. WADDLE,
Defendant.

(Doc. No. 33, 34, 37)
Plaintiff Joshua A. Willard 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. This 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

On April 1, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to reopen (Doc. No. 33) and motion requesting that

22

defendant provide him with copies of the parties’ settlement agreement and stipulation for

23

voluntary dismissal (Doc. No. 34) be denied as moot. (Doc. No. 37.) Specifically, the magistrate

24

judge found that because defendant had responded to plaintiff’s motions and clarified that

25

defendant sent copies of the requested documents to plaintiff shortly after he filed his motions,

26

and plaintiff did not file a reply to that response, an inference could appropriately be made that

27

plaintiff no longer wished to reopen this case. (Id. at 3.) Those findings and recommendations

28

were served on plaintiff by mail on March 27, 2020 and contained notice that objections thereto
1

1

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at

2

4.) To date, no objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the

3

time in which to do so has now passed.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

5

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that

6

the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

7

Accordingly,

8

1.

9

The findings and recommendations issued on April 1, 2020 (Doc No. 37) are
adopted in full;

10

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case (Doc. No. 33) is denied as moot;

11

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for copies (Doc. No. 34) is denied as moot; and

12

4.

This case remains closed.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 11, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2