From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Cnty. of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 18, 2018
No. 2:15-cv-0680 TLN DB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-0680 TLN DB P

12-18-2018

WALTER OLIN JONES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former county prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In March 2018, defendants filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff's most recent filing in response indicated that he was agreeable to a settlement on the terms set out in the motion. (ECF No. 75.) On November 9, 2018, the undersigned held a status conference to determine whether the parties have reached a settlement or whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary on defendants' motion to enforce the settlement. Nicole Cahill appeared for defendants. There was no appearance for plaintiff.

After that status conference, the court ordered defendants' counsel to file either a notice of settlement signed by both parties or a statement regarding counsel's attempts to obtain a signed settlement agreement. (Nov. 13, 2018 Order (ECF No. 84).) Plaintiff was warned that if he failed to either sign the settlement agreement or inform the court by December 9, 2018 why he is unwilling to do so, this court might recommend dismissal of this action.

The November 13, 2018 order was served on plaintiff at the address he provided to the court in August. (See ECF No. 81.) On December 7, 2018, defendants' counsel filed a statement describing her several unsuccessful attempts to reach plaintiff by telephone. (ECF No. 85.) In addition, plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court's November 13 order.

Accordingly, based on plaintiff's failure to comply with court orders, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: December 18, 2018

/s/_________

DEBORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/jone0680.fr


Summaries of

Jones v. Cnty. of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 18, 2018
No. 2:15-cv-0680 TLN DB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018)
Case details for

Jones v. Cnty. of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:WALTER OLIN JONES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 18, 2018

Citations

No. 2:15-cv-0680 TLN DB P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018)