Harris v. Malakkla, 2:17-cv-2040 JAM DB P. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200117c80
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2020
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action was closed on April 15, 2019 after the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). On October 9, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action was closed on April 15, 2019 after the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). On October 9, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings ..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was closed on April 15, 2019 after the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
On October 9, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 59.) Neither party has filed objections1 to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed October 9, 2019, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion to set aside the settlement agreement (ECF No. 52) is denied.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff requested and was granted a thirty-day extension of time in which to file objections. (ECF Nos. 60, 61.) Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed objections or requested additional time to file objections.
Source: Leagle
