Opinion
No. CIV S-09-3482 JAM DAD P
08-23-2011
RUFUS A. AVENT, Plaintiff, v. M. CATE et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 17, 2011, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendant Lesane be denied. On August 15, 2011, the assigned district judge adopted those findings and recommendations in full and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment.
In due course, the court will issue a further scheduling order setting dates for pretrial statements, pretrial conference, and jury trial. However, before issuing the scheduling order, the court will set a mandatory settlement conference in this case. If available, the court may order that plaintiff participate in the settlement conference by way of video-conferencing. Pursuant to Local Rule 270(b), the parties will be directed to inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to be referred to the court's mediation program.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within twenty-one days of the date of this order, each party shall inform the court in writing as to whether they wish to proceed with the settlement conference before the undersigned magistrate judge or if they wish to wish to be referred to the court's mediation program. If the parties wish to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge, each party shall return to the court the consent form for settlement conferences provided with this order. If the parties do not wish the undersigned magistrate judge to preside at the settlement conference, each party shall file a declaration stating he wishes to be referred to the court's mediation program; and
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send each party the consent form for settlement conferences.
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE