(PC) Bradford v. Moseley ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, No. 2:21-cv-02374-WBS-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HOWARD E. MOSELEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 14, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 14, 2022, are adopted in full. 3 2. Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied. 4 3. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the date this Order is filed in which to pay the 5 | $402 filing fee for this action. Failure to pay the filing fee within the time permitted will result in 6 | the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 7 | Dated: February 14, 2022 / ' - 8 th etn Ui (in 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/brad2374.800.docx 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28