(PC) Bland v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, 1:19-cv-01496-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS vs.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FOURTEEN DAYS AND REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 5, 2019, plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement in Bland v. Badger (Bland I), 1:19-cv-0702 DAD EPG, that included the dismissal of this case with prejudice, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff then requested that the settlement be rescinded. Bland I, ECF Nos. 36, 37. The request was denied. Bland I, ECF No. 50. Accordingly, the settlement agreement remains valid and it will be recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the settlement agreement in Bland I.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the settlement agreement in Bland v. Badger, 1:19-cv-0702 DAD EPG.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE