Dunn v. HUD Urban Development

Opinion

EMMA DUNN, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00815-KES-BAM Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING v. PENDING REQUESTS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS HUD URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., (Docs. 2, 5, 8, 9) Defendants.

On October 18, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that the pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis in this multi-plaintiff action be denied because the $405.00 filing fee was paid. Doc. 9. The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs filed objections on October 29, 2024. Doc. 10. Plaintiffs’ objections do not challenge the recommendation that their requests to proceed in forma pauperis be denied given that the filing fee was paid. Id. Among other things, the objections copy portions of a Ninth Circuit opinion addressing unrelated matters, inserting plaintiffs’ names in place of the appellant. Compare Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 836 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014), with Doc. 10 at 15. Wilkerson considered issues relating to a state prisoner’s exhaustion of administrative remedies on summary judgment and post-trial challenges to jury instructions. Wilkerson, 772 F.3d at 839-42. These issues are not implicated by the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly: 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 18, 2024, Doc. 9, are adopted in full; and 2. The pending requests to proceed in forma pauperis, Docs. 2, 5, and 8, are denied. TIS SO ORDERED. _ Dated: _ March 24, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE