(PS) Melton v. Stockton Police Dept.

Opinion

ANTHONY RUSSELL MELTON, No. 2:23–cv–01457–KJM–KJN PS Plaintiff, ORDER v. (ECF Nos. 2, 3) et al., Defendants.

On July 27, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on plaintiff. No objections period is required for denials of requests to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, i.e. in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file written objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that [his] application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.”). 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 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ....”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Plaintiff's IFP request (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the filing fee of $402.00 within 30 days of this order. Once paid in full, the Clerk of the Court may issue the appropriate summons and initial scheduling documents; 4. A failure to satisfy the full filing fee within 30 days of this order may result in dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute; and 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial proceedings. DATED: August 21, 2023. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE