Knapp v. Madera County Department of Corrections, 1:18-cv-00811-NONE-SKO. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200218a08
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. Nos. 57, 58) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Arthur Dean Knapp is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 20, 2019, the defendants in this action filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 55.) Accordingly, the assign
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. Nos. 57, 58) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Arthur Dean Knapp is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 20, 2019, the defendants in this action filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 55.) Accordingly, the assigne..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING ACTION
(Doc. Nos. 57, 58)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Arthur Dean Knapp is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 20, 2019, the defendants in this action filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 55.) Accordingly, the assigned magistrate judge ordered the parties to file dispositional documents by February 7, 2020. (Doc. No. 56.)
On January 21, 2020, pursuant to the parties' settlement, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this action with prejudice. (Doc. No. 57.) Because the request for dismissal was made by plaintiff's motion, and not by a stipulation signed by both parties, this action can be dismissed only upon court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Therefore, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted and this action dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. No. 58.) The magistrate judge provided the parties 14 days to file objections to the findings and recommendations. (Id.) More than the allowed time has passed, and no objections have been filed.
Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 23, 2020 (Doc. No. 58) are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of this action (Doc. No. 57) is granted;
3. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and,
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
