(PC) Weston v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING 30 Findings and Recommendations In Full, GRANTING the 23 Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, and DISMISSING the Action With Prejudice; ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to Enter Judgment in Favor of Defendant and to Close the Case, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/21/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) JOHN F. WESTON, Case No.: 1:20-cv-0326 JLT GSA (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL, GRANTING THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND DISMISSING THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE (Docs. 23, 30) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND TO CLOSE THE CASE John F. Weston is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this 20 action pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1994). The 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. 23 The CDCR filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), arguing the 24 case should be dismissed based upon a prior settlement agreement, and the claims asserted are barred 25 under the doctrine of claim preclusion. (Doc. 23.) The assigned magistrate judge determined the 26 settlement agreement executed by Plaintiff in Case No. 1:19-cv-0131 “encompasses the current case’s 27 ADA claim,” and “Plaintiff waived his claims against defendant CDCR in the settlement agreement.” 28 (Doc. 30 at 19.) As a result, the magistrate judge found the CDCR was “entitled to judgment as a 1 1 matter of law.” (Id.) The magistrate judge recommended the motion be granted and the case be 2 dismissed with prejudice on October 24, 2022. (Id. at 19-20) 3 The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties, who were granted 14 days 4 from the date of service to file any written objections. (Doc. 30 at 20.) In addition, the parties were 5 informed the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 6 District Court’s order.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); 7 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed and 8 the deadline to do so has expired. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 10 review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 11 Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 24, 2022 (Doc. 30) are ADOPTED in full. 13 14 2. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc 23) is GRANTED. 15 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 16 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendant and to close this case. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 21, 2022 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?