(PC) Blake v. Roseville Police Dept. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWNCEY BLAKE, No. 2:22-cv-2009-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 10, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 21 recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to 22 Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 23 within fourteen days. (ECF No. 4.) The Court observes that this procedure is sufficient 24 to constitute notice to the Plaintiff of the potential disqualification under 28 U.S.C. 25 1915(g) as required by Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1120. Plaintiff has not filed 26 objections to the findings and recommendations. 27 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to 28 be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS 1 | HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 10, 2022 (ECF No. 4), 3 | are adopted in full; and 4 2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; and 5 3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall pay the entire 6 | $402.00 in required fees or face dismissal of this case. 7 8 IT |S SO ORDERED. 9 | Dated: _ April 21, 2023 Bek | Cbabeatin.. Hon. Daniel labretta 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28