1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ROBERT JONES, Case No. 3:21-cv-00129-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE v. JUDGE DENNEY’S REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 28) LINDA FOX, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Robert Jones (“Jones”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 14 28), recommending the Court deny Jones’ Motion to Enforce the Settlement 15 Agreement (ECF No. 25) for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff had until December 12, 16 2022 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For 17 this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss 18 Jones’ Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. (ECF No. 25). 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 20 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 21 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 22 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 23 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 24 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 25 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 26 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 27 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 28 1 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 4 and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney 5 recommends the Court deny Jones motion (ECF No. 25) because the Court lacks 6 jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement 7 contained language retaining jurisdiction “until the stipulation to dismiss is 8 granted” and noted that “[u]pon dismissal of this action, the District Court will 9 no longer have jurisdiction over this case.” (ECF No. 25 at 8). In response to the 10 parties’ stipulation to dismiss (ECF No. 23), the Court dismissed this case with 11 prejudice on July 11, 2022. (ECF No. 24). Jones filed his Motion to Enforce the 12 Settlement Agreement on July 14, 2022. (ECF No. 25). Federal courts do not 13 have inherent jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless jurisdiction 14 is expressly made part of the settlement agreement and order of dismissal or 15 there is another independent basis for jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian 16 Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

(1994). The settlement agreement here 17 expressly noted that the Court’s jurisdiction would expire upon dismissal of the 18 action. Because Jones filed his Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (ECF 19 No. 25) after the Court dismissed the case, the Court now lacks jurisdiction to 20 enforce the settlement agreement. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 For these reasons, the Court agrees with Judge Denney. Having reviewed 2 || the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 3 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 4 || (ECF No. 28) is accepted and adopted in full. 5 It is further ordered that Jones Motion to Enforce the Settlement 6 || Agreement (ECF No. 25) is DENIED. 7 8 DATED THIS 23rd Day of March 2023. 9 10 4 [locecd Jen 11 ANNE R. TRAUM 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28