(PC) Bradford v. Withrow ( 2023 )

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. 2:23-cv-00223-DAD-KJN (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PATRICK WITHROW, et al., (Doc. No. 9) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this action on 19 February 2, 2023, but he did not pay the required filing fee or file an application to proceed in 20 forma pauperis. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 27, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 23 recommendations recommending that plaintiff be required to pay the required $402.00 filing fee 24 in full in order to proceed with this action because: (1) he is subject to the three strikes bar under 25 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint do not satisfy the “imminent 26 danger of serious physical injury” exception to § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 9) (citing Andrews v. 27 Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051−55 (9th Cir. 2007)). The findings and recommendations were 28 served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 1 | fourteen (14) days after service. Ud.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the pending findings and 2 | recommendations on March 13, 2023. (Doc. No. 10.) 3 In his objections to the pending findings and recommendations, plaintiff neither contests 4 | that he has accumulated at least three prior strike dismissals, enough to be barred by the “three 5 || strikes” provision, nor contends that he qualifies for the exception under the provision for 6 || prisoners who face “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 7 | Rather, plaintiff merely restates the allegations in his complaint, his causes of action, and his 8 | prayer for relief. (Doc. Nos. 10, 10-1, 10-2.) Thus, plaintiff has not meaningfully objected to the 9 | pending findings and recommendations. 10 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 11 | conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including 12 | plaintiff's objections, the undersigned concludes that the findings and recommendations are 13 | supported by the record and proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 27, 2023 (Doc. No. 9) are 16 adopted; 17 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the 18 $402.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action; 19 3. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time 20 will result in the dismissal of this action; and 21 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 22 proceedings consistent with this order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 22, 2023 Da A. 2, el 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28