Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Reed v. Madsen, 1:18-cv-00297-AWI-EPG (PC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190712896 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jul. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NOS. 53 & 60) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Mychal Reed ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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. This case was closed on April 2, 2019 (ECF No. 52), based on a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which w
More

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF NOS. 53 & 60)

Mychal Reed ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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.

This case was closed on April 2, 2019 (ECF No. 52), based on a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which was filed on April 2, 2019 (ECF No. 51).

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw from his settlement agreement with Defendant. (ECF No. 53). On May 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending "that Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw from the Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 53) be DENIED." (ECF No. 60, p. 5).

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed his objections. (ECF No. 62).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. The "retaliation" complained of occurred after the settlement was signed. The Court agrees that the conduct had no effect on the decision to sign the settlement. Further, Plaintiff has not shown that the incorrect SSN was material to the terms of the settlement.1 Thus, having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, the COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on May 31, 2019, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff's motion to withdraw from his settlement agreement with Defendant (ECF No. 53) is DENIED; and 3. This case remains CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Nor does Plaintiff adequately address Defendant's contention that a form can be used to correct the erroneous SSN.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer