Yeldon v. Caulkin et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that upon de novo review, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 103 ) is accepted. ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Dkt. No. 99 ) to vacate the stipulation (Dkt. No. 98 ) is denied. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 8/1/16. {order served via regular mail on plaintiff}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

WILLIE JAMES YELDON,
Plaintiff,
-v-

9:12-CV-1564 (NAM/ATB)

JOHN CAULKIN, et al.,
Defendants.
N
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

APPEARANCES:
Willie James Yeldon
C-97716
CNY PC
PO Box 300
Marcy, New York 13403
Plaintiff, pro se
A

Office of Lisa A. Gilels
Lisa A. Gilels, Esq., of counsel
333 East Onondaga Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorney for Plaintiff

M

Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York
Justin L. Engel, Esq., Assistant New York State Attorney
Litigation Bureau
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorney for Defendants

Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Senior U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On February 12, 2016, plaintiff, his attorney, counsel for defendants, and United States
Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter signed a “So Ordered” stipulation (Dkt. No. 98) pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing with prejudice the above-captioned action.1 In the
stipulation, plaintiff also agreed to execute a separate stipulation discontinuing a lawsuit currently
pending in the Western District of New York, Yeldon v. Fischer, 1:07-CV-370 (W.D.N.Y.).
Thereafter, by letter docketed on March 14, 2016, plaintiff moved (Dkt. No. 99) to vacate the
stipulation on various grounds. By Report and Recommendation dated April 4, 2016 (Dkt. No.
103), Magistrate Judge Baxter recommended that this Court deny plaintiff’s motion and approve
N

the dismissal of this action.
Plaintiff has filed an objection (Dkt. No. 104) to the Report and Recommendation and a
reply (Dkt. No. 105) to defendants’ opposition to his motion to vacate the stipulation. Based on
the content of these two submissions, the Court conducts de novo review of the issues. Having
reviewed the transcript of the settlement proceedings as well as all other relevant submissions, the

A

Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Baxter that the issues raised by plaintiff do not warrant
vacatur under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or any other relief. The Court accepts the Report and
Recommendation, denies plaintiff’s vacatur motion, finds that the stipulation is enforceable, and
approves dismissal of the action. Moreover, because the stipulation expressly so stated, the
dismissal is with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).
It is therefore

M

ORDERED that upon de novo review, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 103) is
accepted; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 99) to vacate the stipulation (Dkt. No. 98) is

1

As noted by Magistrate Judge Baxter, because the stipulation was executed by all parties, it
is effective even in the absence of a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
-2-

denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of
New York.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 1, 2016
Syracuse, New York
N
A
M

-3-