Thomas v. California Stop ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY THOMAS, No. 2:22–cv–58–JAM–KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 2, 4) 14 CALIFORNIA STOP, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 7, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 3), which were served on the parties. No objections period was set. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 19 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to 20 file written objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that [his] application to proceed 21 in forma pauperis be denied.”). The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See 22 Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of 23 law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th 24 Cir. 1983). 25 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 26 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s IFP request (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 4 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to satisfy the filing fee in $50 installments, beginning February 5 11, 2022, running until the $402 filing fee is satisfied, and allow for the Clerk to issue a 6 summons after the first installment is received; 7 4. Plaintiff is warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the payment 8 schedule may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and 9 5. This matter is referred back to the assigned district judge for all further proceedings. 10 11 12 DATED: March 29, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28