Hollis v. Herrick et al
Filing
93
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/18/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
MARVIN GLEN HOLLIS,
No. C-08-3154 TEH (PR)
9
Plaintiff,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
v.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO
SETTLEMENT
11
DEBRA HERRICK, et al.,
12
Defendants.
Docket No. 92
13
/
14
15
On January 16, 2013, Defendants in this pro se prisoner
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
civil rights case filed a Notice of Settlement.
The Notice
indicated that the parties reached a settlement of all claims and
that Plaintiff had signed a stipulation for a voluntary dismissal
with prejudice of the entire action, which Defendants would file
when they performed their obligations under the settlement
agreement.
On February 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a hand-written
request for dismissal with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (voluntary dismissal pursuant to parties’
stipulation), according to the parties’ settlement of all claims on
January 10, 2013.
Attached to Plaintiff’s request for dismissal is
the stipulation for voluntary dismissal that Plaintiff signed on
1
January 10, 2013.
2
Therefore, pursuant to the settlement entered into by all
3
parties, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to
4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
5
6
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close
the file.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
DATED
03/18/2013
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.08\Hollis08-3154 Vol Dis per Sttlmt.wpd
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?