govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00549-26

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
WALTER R. REID, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
CMO JASON NASH, et al., 
Defendants. 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY 
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE 
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 
 
Docs. 108, 114 
 
 
 
 
 
 Plaintiff Walter R. Reid is proceeding pro in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 
On April 30, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge, who conducted the settlement 
conference at issue in this action, issued findings and recommendations to deny plaintiff’s motion 
to set aside the settlement agreement. Doc. 114. The parties were afforded fourteen (14) days 
within which to file any objections. Id. at 11. On May 15, 2026, plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 
115. 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 
Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that the 
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 
/// 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2 
 
 
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 
1. The findings and recommendations issued April 30, 2026, are ADOPTED in full. 
2. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the settlement agreement (Doc. 114) is DENIED. 
3. The terms of the settlement are as reflected in the written settlement agreement 
originally prepared by defendant. 
4. The settlement is effective as of the date of this order, and all deadlines in the 
agreement will run from that date. 
5. The Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. 
 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Dated: June 10, 2026 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight