Mills v. Wenger ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER MILLS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1425 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 WENGER, et al., ) (Doc. 6) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Christopher Mills seeks to proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this action, alleging a 18 violation of his civil rights occurring during his arrest. The magistrate judge determined Plaintiff’s 19 application to proceed in forma pauperis did not make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 20 because the application failed to provide sufficient information. Therefore, on October 16, 2019, the 21 magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to submit a renewed application or pay the filing fee. (Doc. 3.) After 22 Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order, the magistrate judge recommended the complaint be 23 dismissed on November 3, 2021. (Doc. 6.) 24 The Court granted Plaintiff thirty days from the date of service to file any objections to the 25 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 6 at 2.) In addition, Plaintiff was “advised that failure 26 to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing 27 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). On December 13, 2021, the magistrate judge 28 granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to pay the filing fee, file an application to proceed in forma 1 || pauperis, or object to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 8.) Thus, Plaintiff was to respond t 2 || the Findings and Recommendations no later than January 12, 2022. To date, no objections have beer 3 || filed and Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a new application. 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 matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are 7 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 3, 2021 (Doc. 6) are ADOPTE] 9 IN FULL. 10 2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 11 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action, because this Order terminates 12 the matter in its entirety. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. 1S Dated: _ February 3, 2022 ( LAW ph L. wary 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28