Thomas v. California Stop

Opinion

ANTHONY THOMAS, No. 2:22–cv–58–JAM–KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. (ECF Nos. 2, 4) CALIFORNIA STOP, et al., Defendants. On January 7, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on the parties. No objections period was set. 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 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. //// //// Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s IFP request (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to satisfy the filing fee in $50 installments, beginning February 11, 2022, running until the $402 filing fee is satisfied, and allow for the Clerk to issue a summons after the first installment is received; 4. Plaintiff is warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the payment schedule may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned district judge for all further proceedings.

DATED: March 29, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE