Mendonca v. Lee ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLOTTE MENDONCA, No. 2:24-cv-00994-JAM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF Nos. 3, 6) 14 YOUNG HEE LEE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 On August 26, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations to deny 17 plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, finding that plaintiff’s application 18 indicates he is not unable to pay the filing fee. (ECF Nos. 3, 6.) The findings and 19 recommendations were served on plaintiff and advised plaintiff that no objections period was 20 required. See Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended 21 (Sept. 9, 1998) (holding that plaintiffs are not entitled to file written objections to magistrate 22 judge recommendation to deny IFP status). Plaintiff has not filed objections. 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 27 //// 28 1 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED; 2 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to satisfy the filing fee in $80 installments, beginning 3 September 23, 2024 (or sooner if Plaintiff wishes), and allow for the clerk to issue a 4 summons after the first installment is received. 5 4. Plaintiff is warned that failure to satisfy the full filing fee according to the payment 6 schedule (OR) by September 23, 2024 may result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 41(b). 8 Dated: September 09, 2024 /s/ John A. Mendez 9 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 10 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28