Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance

Opinion

RUBY BRADLEY, No. 2:19-cv-02419-MCE-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE, et al., Defendants. On December 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee of $400.00 on an installment schedule, with $50.00 payments to the Clerk of Court due on the following deadlines: February 1, 2020 March 1, 2020 April 1, 2020 May 1, 2020 June 1, 2020 July 1, 2020 August 1, 2020 September 1, 2020 4. Once the first installment payment is made, the court shall direct service of the complaint on the named defendant; and 5. Plaintiff is informed that a failure to timely pay the filing fee, or timely request an extension of time to do so, may result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dated: January 21, 2020 ak. a bean, (hi. WILLIAMB.SHUBB | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE