Filed: Sep. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. Nos. 149, 161) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Manuel Antonio Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 January 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 145) following a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice that w
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. Nos. 149, 161) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Manuel Antonio Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 January 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 145) following a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice that wa..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. Nos. 149, 161)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Manuel Antonio Gonzalez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 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 January 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 145) following a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice that was signed by counsel for both parties and filed with the court on January 29, 2019. (Doc. No. 144). On February 21, 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se motion to enforce settlement agreement, full payment to attorney, and/or to allow plaintiff to withdraw settlement and proceed with trial. (Doc. No. 149.)
On August 29, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion be denied. The findings and recommendations explained that plaintiff had not established extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the court's order closing the case pursuant to the parties' stipulation of voluntary dismissal given defendant's compliance with the settlement agreement and the absence of any showing by plaintiff that his consent to the settlement agreement was obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence. (Doc. No. 161.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto where to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 8.) To date, objections have not been filed, and the time in which to do so has since passed.1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court find the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The August 29, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 161) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's pro se motion to enforce settlement agreement, full payment to attorney, and/or to allow plaintiff to withdraw settlement and proceed with trial. (Doc. No. 149) is denied; and
3. As indicated in the January 30, 2019 order (Doc. No. 145), this case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
