Daniel Harper v. S. Pohovich, et al.

E.D. California

Daniel Harper v. S. Pohovich, et al.

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03668

StatusUnknown

This text of Daniel Harper v. S. Pohovich, et al. (Daniel Harper v. S. Pohovich, et al.) 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

Daniel Harper v. S. Pohovich, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL HARPER, No. 2:24-cv-3668-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. POHOVICH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel Harper (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 9, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did not file 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 27 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 9, 2025 (ECF No. 15) are ADOPTED in 3 full; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing 5 fee; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 Date: September 9, 2025

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 DANIEL HARPER, No. 2:24-cv-3668-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. POHOVICH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel Harper (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On July 9, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff did not file 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 27 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 9, 2025 (ECF No. 15) are ADOPTED in 3 full; 4 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing 5 fee; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 Date: September 9, 2025

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daniel Harper v. S. Pohovich, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-harper-v-s-pohovich-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack