(PC) Jones v. Sacramento et al, No. 2:2015cv00680 - Document 86 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/18/18 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. re 28 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint filed by Walter Olin Jones. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER OLIN JONES, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-0680 TLN DB P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former county prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In March 2018, defendants filed a motion to enforce a 19 settlement agreement. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff’s most recent filing in response indicated that he 20 was agreeable to a settlement on the terms set out in the motion. (ECF No. 75.) On November 9, 21 2018, the undersigned held a status conference to determine whether the parties have reached a 22 settlement or whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary on defendants’ motion to enforce the 23 settlement. Nicole Cahill appeared for defendants. There was no appearance for plaintiff. 24 After that status conference, the court ordered defendants’ counsel to file either a notice of 25 settlement signed by both parties or a statement regarding counsel’s attempts to obtain a signed 26 settlement agreement. (Nov. 13, 2018 Order (ECF No. 84).) Plaintiff was warned that if he 27 failed to either sign the settlement agreement or inform the court by December 9, 2018 why he is 28 unwilling to do so, this court might recommend dismissal of this action. 1 1 The November 13, 2018 order was served on plaintiff at the address he provided to the 2 court in August. (See ECF No. 81.) On December 7, 2018, defendants’ counsel filed a statement 3 describing her several unsuccessful attempts to reach plaintiff by telephone. (ECF No. 85.) In 4 addition, plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court’s November 13 order. 5 6 7 Accordingly, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 9 after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 10 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 11 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 12 specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 13 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: December 18, 2018 15 16 17 18 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/jone0680.fr 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2