Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Renteria-Novoa v. Baca

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 15, 2017

GUILLERMO RENTERIA-NOVOA, Plaintiff,
v.
ISIDRO BACA, et al., Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4. Before the court is defendants' motion to enforce settlement (ECF No. 18), which plaintiff opposed (ECF Nos. 27, 29). Having thoroughly reviewed the record and papers, the court hereby recommends that the defendants' motion to enforce settlement be granted.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Guillermo Renteria-Novoa (“plaintiff”) is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was housed at Lovelock Correctional Center (“LCC”). Plaintiff generally alleges that the NDOC has been deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's foot conditions and has failed to schedule recommended surgery. (See ECF No. 5-1.) The court issued a screening order and allowed plaintiff to proceed with his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. (ECF No. 6.)

         On November 22, 2016 the parties participated in a mediation session as part of the District of Nevada's early inmate mediation program, and were able to reach a settlement. (See ECF No. 11.) The parties agreed that this court would retain jurisdiction of this matter during finalization of the settlement agreement, and the parties were to submit a stipulation and dismissal with prejudice to the court no later than December 21, 2016. (Id.)

         At the conclusion of the November 22, 2016 settlement conference, the mediation convened in open court to establish on the record the terms of the settlement agreement. (See ECF Nos. 11, 34.) The terms of the settlement stated on the record and agreed upon among the parties and counsel were as follows:

1. The settlement of the case would not affect plaintiff's legal rights with respect to any actions that occurred after the date of settlement.
2. The NDOC would schedule within thirty days of the final execution of the agreement, a consultation with Dr. Lundeen or another appropriate foot specialist. Any treatment recommendation would be submitted to the Utilization Review Panel for review and consideration.
3. Plaintiff could request placement on the chronic care list.
4. The NDOC would remove all department debt owed as of the date the parties entered into the agreement, for an amount totaling $171.36.
5. Plaintiff would dismiss the case with prejudice.
6. Plaintiff would be relieved of his obligation to pay the $350 filing fee.
7. The parties understood and agreed that they had a binding settlement agreement that day, that the agreement would be memorialized in writing.

(See ECF No. 34 at 14-15.)

         When the mediator, counsel, and the parties put the settlement terms on the record, the mediator inquired of all present a number of times if there were any clarifications or questions concerning the settlement. Initially, plaintiff responded that he did not agree to the terms, so the mediator helped the parties come up with the additional term outlined as term number one above. When asked again, with the additional term added, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.