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)

Download PDF
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?