Nunes et al v. County of Stanislaus et al, No. 1:2017cv00633 - Document 98 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 97 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of the Minors' Compromise, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/21/2022. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELA NUNES, et al., 12 No. 1:17-cv-00633-DAD-SAB Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINORS’ COMPROMISE Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 91, 97) 16 On May 5, 2017, plaintiffs Angelina Nunes, Emanuel Alves, and minors D.X. and L.X. by 17 18 and through their guardian ad litem Angelina Nunes (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed the pending 19 action against defendants County of Stanislaus, Kristen Johnson, and Eric Anderson, asserting 20 that the minors were wrongfully removed from the custody of their parents. (Doc. No. 1.) This 21 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 22 Local Rule 302. On March 21, 2022, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking approval of the parties’ settlement 23 24 and minors’ compromise.1 (Doc. No. 91.) On May 17, 2022, defendants filed a statement of non- 25 26 27 28 1 The parties filed a nearly identical petition in the related action Nunes v. County of Stanislaus, No. 19-cv-00204-DAD-SAB (Nunes II), because the parties’ settlement resolves both actions. The assigned magistrate judge issued separate findings and recommendations on the docket in Nunes II to address that petition, and the undersigned will issue on order on the docket in Nunes II to address those findings and recommendations. 1 1 opposition to the pending petition. (Doc. No. 95.) On May 31, 2022, the assigned magistrate 2 judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiffs’ petition for approval of 3 the minors’ compromise be granted and that the parties’ settlement be approved. (Doc. No. 97 at 4 9.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed 5 within fourteen (14) days. To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been 6 filed, and the time in which to do so has passed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 9 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 Accordingly: 11 1. 12 13 adopted in full; 2. 14 15 The findings and recommendations issued on May 31, 2022 (Doc. No. 97) are Plaintiffs’ petition to approve settlement of the minors’ claims (Doc. No. 91) is granted; 3. The parties are directed to file a stipulation for dismissal or a request for dismissal 16 of this action, consistent with the parties’ settlement, within fourteen (14) days 17 from the date of this order; and 18 4. 19 20 21 22 This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.