Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance

E.D. California

Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance

DecidedJanuary 21, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-02419

StatusUnknown

This text of Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance (Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBY BRADLEY, No. 2:19-cv-02419-MCE-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 15 ASSISTANCE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On December 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 19 No. 3), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 21 filed. 22 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 23 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 24 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 25 1983). 26 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 27 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 28 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED; 2 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 3 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee of $400.00 on an installment schedule, 4 | with $50.00 payments to the Clerk of Court due on the following deadlines: 5 February 1, 2020 6 March 1, 2020 7 April 1, 2020 8 May 1, 2020 9 June 1, 2020 10 July 1, 2020 11 August 1, 2020 12 September 1, 2020 13 4. Once the first installment payment is made, the court shall direct service of the 14 | complaint on the named defendant; and 15 5. Plaintiff is informed that a failure to timely pay the filing fee, or timely request an 16 | extension of time to do so, may result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 17 || Procedure 41(b). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: January 21, 2020 ak. a bean, (hi. 20 WILLIAMB.SHUBB | 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBY BRADLEY, No. 2:19-cv-02419-MCE-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 15 ASSISTANCE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On December 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 19 No. 3), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were 21 filed. 22 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 23 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 24 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 25 1983). 26 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 27 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 28 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED; 2 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 3 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee of $400.00 on an installment schedule, 4 | with $50.00 payments to the Clerk of Court due on the following deadlines: 5 February 1, 2020 6 March 1, 2020 7 April 1, 2020 8 May 1, 2020 9 June 1, 2020 10 July 1, 2020 11 August 1, 2020 12 September 1, 2020 13 4. Once the first installment payment is made, the court shall direct service of the 14 | complaint on the named defendant; and 15 5. Plaintiff is informed that a failure to timely pay the filing fee, or timely request an 16 | extension of time to do so, may result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 17 || Procedure 41(b). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: January 21, 2020 ak. a bean, (hi. 20 WILLIAMB.SHUBB | 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bradley v. County of Sacramento Dept. of Human Assistance, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-county-of-sacramento-dept-of-human-assistance-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack