1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 JOSEPH BARRESE, Case No. 2:18-cv-01671-KJD-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE and DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY CHIEF 8 RICHARD SUEY, individually and in his REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION official capacity, CORRECTIONS OFFICER 9 KEVIN GALE, individually and in his official capacity, DOES 1 through 10, 10 individually and/or in their official capacities, DOE CLASSIFICATION EMPLOYEES 1 11 through 10, individually and/or in their official capacity, ROE CORPORATIONS 1 12 through 10, Foreign and/or Domestic Corporations, 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement. ECF No. 55. No 16 timely response was filed. 17 The parties reached settlement in this matter on January 3, 2022. Id. at 1. Unfortunately, 18 since that time, Plaintiff has refused to sign the settlement agreement. Id. at 2. The Court is 19 empowered to enforce a settlement when the parties form a contract representing agreed upon 20 material terms demonstrating the intent to be mutually bound. Samet v. Bayview Loan Servicing, 21 LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00581-GMN-EJY,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2019) 22 (quoting Callie v. Near,

(9th Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff’s failure to contest the 23 Motion to Enforce Settlement demonstrates no dispute over the material terms. Said differently, 24 there is nothing before the Court supporting the potential supposition that there are material terms in 25 dispute. In the absence of evidence or argument providing any basis upon which the Court may rely 26 to conclude Plaintiff did not agree to the material terms in the settlement agreement with the intent 27 to be bound by the same, the Court finds the settlement agreement is enforceable. Id. at *2 (internal ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settleme 2 || (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED. 3 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed with prejudiced 4 DATED this 24th day of June, 2022. 6 Gaypoade Apactiob ELAYNA’J. YOU: H 7 UNITEDSTATES MAG TE JUDGE 9 NOTICE 10 Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2, any objection to this Finding and Recommendation must | in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days. The Supreme Court h held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to fi ° objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This circuit has al: " held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly addre ° and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order and/or appe factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

, 1157 □□□□ C 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28