Moore v. Price

Filing 91

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 03/27/2023 VACATING 81 Order and is instead CONSTRUED as Findings and Recommendations; ADOPTING 81 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 77 Plaintiff's Motion to Recall the Settlement Agreement; DENYING 88 Request for Transcripts as moot. (Rodriguez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEVIN MOORE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-01232-TLN-DB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

PRICE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the

18

Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 89.) On February 27, 2023, the Ninth Circuit issued an order

19

concluding that the magistrate judge’s March 30, 2022 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to recall

20

the settlement agreement exceeded the limits of the magistrate judge’s authority absent consent

21

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Id.) The Ninth Circuit therefore remanded this case to this Court with

22

instructions to vacate the magistrate judge’s March 30, 2022 order and conduct further

23

proceedings on Plaintiff’s motion to recall the settlement agreement. (Id.) The Ninth Circuit also

24

indicated this Court may elect to treat the magistrate judge’s March 30, 2022 order as a report and

25

recommendation and consider Plaintiff’s objections filed on April 29, 2022. (Id.) The Ninth

26

Circuit issued its mandate on March 21, 2023.

27
28

Pursuant to the Ninth’s Circuit’s remand order, the Court construes the magistrate judge’s
March 30, 2022 order as a report and recommendation. In accordance with the provisions of 28
1

1

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and the Court’s Local Rules, this Court has conducted a de novo review of

2

this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s objections filed April 29,

3

2022, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

4

proper analysis.

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The magistrate judge’s March 30, 2022, order (ECF No. 81) is VACATED and is

7

instead construed as findings and recommendations;

8

2. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 81) are ADOPTED IN FULL;

9

3. Plaintiff’s motion to recall the settlement agreement (ECF No. 77) is DENIED; and

10
11

4. Plaintiff’s request for transcripts (ECF No. 88) is DENIED as moot.
Dated: March 27, 2023

12
13
14
15

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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