Filed: Jun. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Delton L. Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The parties to this action reached a settlement agreement on March 20, 2018. (Doc. No. 74.) The parties thereafter filed a stipulation and requ
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Delton L. Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The parties to this action reached a settlement agreement on March 20, 2018. (Doc. No. 74.) The parties thereafter filed a stipulation and reque..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Delton L. Taylor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
The parties to this action reached a settlement agreement on March 20, 2018. (Doc. No. 74.) The parties thereafter filed a stipulation and request for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. No. 75.) Accordingly, on March 21, 2018, the court closed this case. (Doc. No. 76.)
On October 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a "motion to enforce settlement agreement," seeking a court order "directing the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation to comply with the Settlement Agreement Reached between both parties." (Doc. No. 79 at 2.) On November 9, 2018, defendants filed a response to plaintiff's motion. (Doc. No. 81.)
On March 14, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement be denied for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 83.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of that order. (Id. at 3.) After receiving extensions of time with which to file his objections (see Doc. Nos. 85, 87), plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations on May 20, 2019. (Doc. No. 88.)
In his objections, plaintiff merely reiterates the arguments of his motion. (See generally Doc. No. 88.) However, plaintiff fails therein to address the magistrate judge's finding that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement agreement. (Id.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 14, 2019 (Doc. No. 83) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for post-judgment relief (Doc. No. 79) is denied for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and
3. This case remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
