(PC) Barrett v. Cate et al, No. 1:2009cv01741 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/5/2010 adopting 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying 2 , 7 Motion to Proceed IFP and acknowledging payment of filing fee in full.(Lundstrom, T)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Barrett v. Cate et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT E. BARRETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 M. CATE, et al., 15 16 17 18 Defendants. 1:09-cv-01741-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 8.) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Docs. 2, 7.) ORDER ACKNOWLEDGING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL _____________________________/ Robert E. Barrett (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 21 On October 30, 2009, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending 22 that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be required to pay the 23 filing fee in full for this action. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff was given leave to file objections within thirty 24 days. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. However, on 25 November 20, 2009, plaintiff paid the $350.00 filing fee in full. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73- 27 305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 2 analysis. 3 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 5 30, 2009, are ADOPTED in full; 6 7 2. Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on October 5, 2009 and October 28, 2009, are DENIED; and 8 9 3. The Court acknowledges that on November 20, 2009, Plaintiff paid the $350.00 filing fee in full for this action. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: b9ed48 January 5, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 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.
