MORRISS v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, C 06-2471 RS. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20120411639
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTIONS RE ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. This is a civil rights action which was resolved in a judicially-supervised settlement conference in April of 2008. A stipulated order of dismissal was entered in June of that year. Subsequently, plaintiff contended that defendants failed to comply with the settlement agreement, and filed a "Request for Trial for Breach of Contract of Settlement Agreement" and a "
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTIONS RE ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. This is a civil rights action which was resolved in a judicially-supervised settlement conference in April of 2008. A stipulated order of dismissal was entered in June of that year. Subsequently, plaintiff contended that defendants failed to comply with the settlement agreement, and filed a "Request for Trial for Breach of Contract of Settlement Agreement" and a "R..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTIONS RE ALLEGED BREACH OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
This is a civil rights action which was resolved in a judicially-supervised settlement conference in April of 2008. A stipulated order of dismissal was entered in June of that year. Subsequently, plaintiff contended that defendants failed to comply with the settlement agreement, and filed a "Request for Trial for Breach of Contract of Settlement Agreement" and a "Request for Judgment on Breach of Contract." Those motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Vadas, who previously had held numerous proceedings to address concerns raised by plaintiff regarding defendants' performance of the settlement agreement. On March 1, 2012, Judge Vadas issued a Report and Recommendation that the pending orders be denied. No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court has reviewed Judge Vadas's thorough Report and Recommendation and adopts it here in full. Plaintiff's motions, Docket Nos. 70 and 71, are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
