Smith v. City of Fresno ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDACE SMITH, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01613 JLT SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA ) 14 CITY OF FRESNO, et al., ) PAUPERIS AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO ) PAY THE FILING FEE 15 Defendants. ) ) (Docs. 3, 5) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Candace Smith initiated this civil rights action on November 4, 2021. (Doc. 1.) 18 Concurrent with her complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3) On 19 November 8, 2021, the Court found the application did not contain sufficient information to determine 20 whether Plaintiff was entitled to proceed in the action without payment of fees. (Doc. 4 at 1.) Thus, 21 the Court denied the application and directed Plaintiff to file a long-form application with additional 22 information regarding her finances within twenty-one days of the date of service. (Id. at 1-2.) 23 Plaintiff failed to file the long-form application. 24 On December 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that 25 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and the Court directed Plaintiff to pay 26 the filing fee for this action within fourteen days, or face dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee and 27 failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. 5.) The Court granted Plaintiff 14 days to file objections 28 to the findings and recommendations and informed her the failure to respond to the objections may 1 || result in a waiver of the right to appeal. (Ud. at 2-3, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 2 || (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) The deadline to file 3 || objections has passed, and no objections were filed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley Unitec 5 || School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 6 || Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations are supported t 7 the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 3, 2021 (Doc. 5) are adopted in 9 full; 10 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED; and 11 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action within fourteen days of the 12 date of filing of this order. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in dismissal ¢ 13 this action. 14 15 IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: _ January 21, 2022 ( LAW pA LU. wan 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28