Colbert v. Leininger, et al.
Filing
92
ORDER adopting in full 88 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/20/18. Plaintiff's 82 motion is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEORGE K. COLBERT,
12
No. 2:13-cv-0382 KJM KJN P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
D. LEININGER,
15
ORDER
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided
19
by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On October 11, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which
21
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed
23
objections to the findings and recommendations.
24
Plaintiff claims he provided “a written settlement agreement concerning lost or destroyed
25
property Exhibits K L,” but there are no exhibits marked “K” or “L” to either his August 21, 2017
26
motion or his November 27, 2017 objections, and none of the appended exhibits is a settlement
27
agreement. (ECF No. 82, 91.) Rather, the exhibits appended to the motion are plaintiff’s 2016
28
1099-MISC form and his 3/8/2017 Inmate Statement Report. (ECF No. 82 at 4-5.) The only
1
1
exhibit to his objections is the 8/29/2016 CLNRAC Inmate Statement. (ECF No. 91 at 5.)
2
Neither party has provided a copy of the settlement agreement, which was not reached under the
3
supervision of a judge. Reviewing all of the filings in connection herewith, it appears that the
4
agreement was for a payment of $2500.00. Nevertheless, this court lacks jurisdiction to revisit
5
the terms of the settlement agreement, as discussed in the findings and recommendations.
6
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
7
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court
8
finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2017, are adopted in full; and
11
2. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 82) is denied.
12
DATED: March 20, 2018
13
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?