-GGH (PC) Peralta v. Martel et al, No. 2:2009cv03228 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 2/24/2011; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 are ADOPTED in FULL; GRANTING dfts motion to dismiss 15 , 19 ; and pltf's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED; Within 28 days of service of this order, pltf shall pay the requisite filing fees or this case will be dismissed. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-GGH (PC) Peralta v. Martel et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CION PERALTA, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 vs. MICHAEL MARTEL, et al., Defendants. ORDER / 15 16 No. CIV S-09-3228 FCD GGH P Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On February 1, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any 21 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff 22 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 25 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 26 by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 1, 2011, are adopted; 3 2. Defendants’ motions (Docket Nos. #15 and #19) are granted,1 and plaintiff’s in 4 forma pauperis status is revoked; 5 3. Within 28 days of service of this order, plaintiff shall pay the requisite filing 6 fees or this case will be dismissed. 7 DATED: February 24, 2011. 8 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Defendants’ motions with respect to plaintiff’s IFP status are granted. The F&Rs did not address the underlying merits of plaintiff’s case. As such, the action is not dismissed unless plaintiff fails to pay the requisite filing fee within the allotted time. 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.
