(PC) Wolinski v. Moeckly

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 25, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01202·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, Case No. 2:25-cv-1202-DJC-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. MOECKLY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 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 May 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice to plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. The Court observes that this procedure is sufficient to constitute notice to the 24 Plaintiff of the potential disqualification under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) as required by 25 Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings 26 and recommendations. 27 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 28 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 1 | are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 2 | (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 3 | district court and [the appellate] court ....”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 4 | the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 5 || analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 21, 2025, are adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED 9 | and plaintiff is directed to tender the filing fee within thirty days of this order; and 10 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further 11 | pretrial proceedings. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _June 24, 2025 “Darel A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta 1s UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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

(PC) Wolinski v. Moeckly, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

(PC) Wolinski v. Moeckly ((PC) Wolinski v. Moeckly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)