Charles D. Morris v. RN Melissa Mitchell, et al.

Opinion

CHARLES D. MORRIS, Case No. 3:23-cv-00042-ART-CSD Plaintiff, ORDER ON REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 75)

RN MELISSA MITCHELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Mr. Morris asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to medical needs and under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Defendants Director of Nursing John Keast and Nurses Melissa Mitchell and Gaylene Fukagawa arising out of his imprisonment at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 6.) The matter was referred to a settlement conference, and the parties ultimately reached a settlement prior to the date of that conference. (ECF No. 52.) Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement (ECF No. 68), and Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted. (ECF No. 75.) Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Mr. Morris has not objected to the R&R, and the 1 time to do so has now expired. 2 The Court possesses inherent authority to enforce settlement agreements 3 in pending cases. See In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957-58 (9th 4 Cir. 2021); Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the 5 agreement in this case provides that the court retains jurisdiction for purposes 6 of enforcing settlement until the stipulation and order for dismissal is filed and 7 granted. (ECF No. 68-2 at 4.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney’s conclusion 8 that Defendants completed their obligations under the settlement agreement to 9 provide a Nevada Department of Corrections-approved jacket. (ECF No. 75 at 4.) It is therefore ordered that the motion to enforce the settlement agreement (ECF No. 68) is GRANTED. It is further ordered that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 75) is ADOPTED. It is further ordered that this action and 3:24-cv-00598-MMD-CSD are } DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is kindly ordered to close the case. Dated this 31st day of March, 2026.

a1 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE