(PC) Colbert v. Leininger, et al., No. 2:2013cv00382 - Document 92 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER adopting in full 88 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/20/18. Plaintiff's 82 motion is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)
Download PDF
(PC) Colbert v. Leininger, et al. Doc. 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE K. COLBERT, 12 No. 2:13-cv-0382 KJM KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 D. LEININGER, 15 ORDER Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 11, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Plaintiff claims he provided “a written settlement agreement concerning lost or destroyed 25 property Exhibits K L,” but there are no exhibits marked “K” or “L” to either his August 21, 2017 26 motion or his November 27, 2017 objections, and none of the appended exhibits is a settlement 27 agreement. (ECF No. 82, 91.) Rather, the exhibits appended to the motion are plaintiff’s 2016 28 1099-MISC form and his 3/8/2017 Inmate Statement Report. (ECF No. 82 at 4-5.) The only 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 exhibit to his objections is the 8/29/2016 CLNRAC Inmate Statement. (ECF No. 91 at 5.) 2 Neither party has provided a copy of the settlement agreement, which was not reached under the 3 supervision of a judge. Reviewing all of the filings in connection herewith, it appears that the 4 agreement was for a payment of $2500.00. Nevertheless, this court lacks jurisdiction to revisit 5 the terms of the settlement agreement, as discussed in the findings and recommendations. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 7 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 8 finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2017, are adopted in full; and 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 82) is denied. 12 DATED: March 20, 2018 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2