(PC) Langston v. Thompson et al, No. 1:2016cv01603 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 9 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 8 Motion to Proceed IFP, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/19/17. Filing Fee Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER SHANE LANGSTON, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 1:16-cv-01603-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. THOMPSON, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9) 17 18 Plaintiff Walter Shane Langston is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with 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 302. 21 On December 29, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 22 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to 24 proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 9.) The findings and recommendations were served on 25 plaintiff and contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. Over 26 thirty days have passed, and no objections have been filed. 27 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 1 1 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by 2 proper analysis. 3 Accordingly: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed on December 29, 2016 (Doc. No. 9) are 5 adopted in full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 8) is denied; and 7 3. Plaintiff shall pay the required $400.00 filing fee in full within thirty (30) days of this 8 order. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: April 19, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 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.