1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 S. SEANAH DIXON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00220-ART-BNW

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ISANDRO BACA, et al.,

9 Defendants. 10 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 11 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler (ECF No. 12 22), construing Plaintiff’s “Notice of Breach” as a Motion to Enforce the 13 agreement according to Plaintiff’s interpretation. (ECF No. 19.) Judge Weksler 14 recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 19) be granted in part and denied 15 in part consistent with her recommendation. No objection has been filed. The 16 Court adopts the R&R. 17 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 18 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 19 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 20 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 21 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 22 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 23 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 24 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 25 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 26 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 27 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 28 1 This Court ordered an Inmate Early Mediation (“ENE”) for December 30, 2 2022. (ECF No. 15.) The mediation took place as scheduled. (ECF No. 18.) The 3 parties reached an agreement, which was reduced to writing, and is attached as 4 ECF No. 20-1. The issue before the Court is whether the agreement requires that 5 NDOC Defendants facilitate a meeting between Plaintiff, SDAG Rand and a 6 Warden at Plaintiff’s institution. According to the agreement, the parties agreed 7 that Plaintiff would meet in person with “SDAG Douglas Rands and Warden 8 Gabriela Najera or another Warden at Plaintiff’s institution to discuss issues 9 relating to her treatment under incarceration.” (ECF No. 20-1.) The parties 10 signed the agreement on that same day. (Id.) 11 Plaintiff explains that when she received a letter in the mail letting her 12 know that a meeting would be set with SDAG Rand and Warden Najera she 13 immediately wrote defense counsel stating she was supposed to be meeting with 14 a Warden at her facility—not Warden Najera. (ECF No. 19-3.) Plaintiff explains 15 she was compelled to attend that meeting despite her objections. Given she never 16 met with a Warden of the facility where she is currently incarcerated, she asks 17 this Court to order NDOC to allow for such a meeting or to return the case to the 18 litigation track. 19 Defendants point to the written agreement and argue Plaintiff agreed to 20 meet with “Warden Najera or another Warden at Plaintiff’s institution.” They 21 explain that SDAG Rands travelled to Las Vegas and met with Warden Najera 22 but that Plaintiff refused to attend the meeting. They also argue that Plaintiff’s 23 letter did not have the effect of modifying the written agreement signed by the 24 parties on December 30, 2022. 25 As Judge Weksler explained, federal courts have inherent authority to 26 enforce settlement agreements in pending cases. See, e.g., In re City Equities 27 Anaheim, Ltd.,

, 958 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, the written agreement 28 clearly states that Defendants would facilitate a meeting with either a Warden at 1 || Plaintiffs institution or Warden Najera. ECF No. 20-1. Plaintiff signed that 2 || agreement. Id. Nothing in the record suggests there was not a meeting of the 3 || minds as to the material terms of the written agreement. The fact that Plaintiff 4 || wrote a letter requesting to meet a Warden at her institution after she signed the 5 || agreement referenced above does not have any effect on the previous agreement 6 || Plaintiff signed. As such, Judge Weksler recommended that the agreement be 7 || enforced, and the case not returned to the litigation track. 8 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 9 || and is satisfied Magistrate Judge Weksler did not clearly err. Having reviewed 10 || the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 11 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Weksler’s Report and 13 || Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is accepted and adopted in full. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 19) is 15 || GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with Judge Weksler’s R&R and 16 || this Order. 17 18 DATED THIS 23rd Day of June 2023. 19 20 ns ‘ jlosead Jen 21 ANNE R. TRAUM 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28