Blair et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al, No. 1:2015cv01451 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DENYING 2 Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed IFP signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/23/2015. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD CHARLES BLAIR, et al., 12 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01451 - LJO - JLT ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 16 17 Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 18 on September 24, 2015. (Docs. 1-2) The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiffs’ application to proceed 19 in forma pauperis, and noted Plaintiffs reported a joint income of $16,500.00. (Doc. 3 at 3, citing Doc. 20 3 at 2) Based upon the income and monthly expenses reported, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs 21 failed to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915, which requires applicants to demonstrate they 22 cannot meet court costs and still provide themselves with the necessities of life. (Id.; see also Martinez 23 v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004)). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge 24 recommended their request be denied. 25 Plaintiffs were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendation that their 26 request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. 3 at 2) In addition, Plaintiffs were “advised that 27 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 28 order.” (Id., citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 1 1 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To date, no objections have been filed, and Plaintiffs paid the filing fee on 2 November 17, 2015. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United 4 School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 5 Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations are supported 6 by the record and proper analysis. 7 Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. IN FULL; and 9 10 The Findings and Recommendations dated November 2, 2015 (Doc. 3) are ADOPTED 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 23, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
