(PC) Carter v. Uhlik,, 1:16-cv-01202-DAD-SAB. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171205744
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO RESCIND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Doc. Nos. 20, 21) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff pursued this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 15, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and the case was closed on that same date. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) On June 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to rescind the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 20.) On June
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO RESCIND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Doc. Nos. 20, 21) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff pursued this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On June 15, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and the case was closed on that same date. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) On June 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to rescind the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 20.) On June ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO RESCIND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
(Doc. Nos. 20, 21)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff pursued this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice and the case was closed on that same date. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) On June 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to rescind the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 20.) On June 21, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion to rescind the settlement agreement be denied. (Doc. No. 21.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued June 21, 2017 (Doc. No. 21) are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's motion to rescind the settlement agreement (Doc. No. 20) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
