Abreu v. Cate et al

Filing 76

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/18/14: This action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672 Attorney General of California MONICA N. ANDERSON, State Bar No. 182970 Supervising Deputy Attorney General KELLI M. HAMMOND, State Bar No. 217485 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 322-4638 Facsimile: (916) 324-5205 Attorneys for Defendants Davis, Miranda, and Robinson 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 Case No. 2:10-cv-1621 JAM-CKD (PC) CLIFFORD ABREU, STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY Plaintiff, DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) 13 14 v. 15 16 MATTHEW L. CATE, et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff Clifford Abreu and Defendants Miranda, Davis, and Robinson have resolved this case in its entirety. Therefore, the parties stipulate to a dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorney’s fees. /// /// /// /// /// /// 28 1 Stip. Voluntary Dismissal [Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)] (2:10-cv-1621 JAM-CKD (PC)) 1 It is so stipulated. 2 3 Dated: 6-9-14 /s/ Clifford Abrea Plaintiff, 4 5 6 Dated: 6-9-14 /s/ Kelli M. Hammond Kelli M. Hammond Deputy Attorney General California Attorney General's Office Attorney for Defendants 7 8 9 10 11 12 In accordance with the parties' stipulation, this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: December 18, 2014 15 16 17 18 19 SA2011300513 CLS Blanks for USDC.rtf 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Stip. Voluntary Dismissal [Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)] (2:10-cv-1621 JAM-CKD (PC))

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?