(PC) Weston v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Opinion

JOHN F. WESTON, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0326 JLT GSA (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) ) )

R THEC E O MM OM TIE ON ND FA OT RIO JN US D I GN M F EU NL TL , O G NR TA HN ET ING ) PLEADINGS, AND DISMISSING THE ACTION CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) WITH PREJUDICE CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ) (Docs. 23, 30) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ) ) DEFENDANT AND TO CLOSE THE CASE )

John F. Weston is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this action pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1994). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The CDCR filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), arguing the case should be dismissed based upon a prior settlement agreement, and the claims asserted are barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. (Doc. 23.) The assigned magistrate judge determined the settlement agreement executed by Plaintiff in Case No. 1:19-cv-0131 “encompasses the current case’s ADA claim,” and “Plaintiff waived his claims against defendant CDCR in the settlement agreement.” (Doc. 30 at 19.) As a result, the magistrate judge found the CDCR was “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ud.) The magistrate judge recommended the motion be granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice on October 24, 2022. (Ud. at 19-20) The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties, who were granted 14 days from the date of service to file any written objections. (Doc. 30 at 20.) In addition, the parties were informed the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (/d., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed and the deadline to do so has expired. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings an Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 24, 2022 (Doc. 30) are ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc 23) is GRANTED. 3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendant and to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 21, 2022 ( LAW fi L. wary TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE