(PC) Youngblood v. Uribe et al, No. 1:2017cv01132 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to DENY Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, and REQUIRE Payment of the Filing Fee; Thirty (30) Day Deadline signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/13/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JESSE L. YOUNGBLOOD, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 v. D. URIBE, et al. 13 Defendants. 14 Case No. 1:17-cv-01132-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND REQUIRE PAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (ECF Nos. 2, 10, 11) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 15 16 Jesse L. Youngblood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 17 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 20 No. 2). On January 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and that 22 Plaintiff be required to pay the $400 filing fee. 23 recommendations were served on Plaintiff, and contained instructions that any objections 24 thereto must be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 10). The findings and 25 On February 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed, “Ex Parte Motion for I the (Petitioner/Appellant) 26 in Pursuant to Ca. Penal Code P.C. (s)2601,967,422.75,1007,1009,1404,166,1253,102,1108, 27 and 9,132 et. seq.: and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and 60(a) Federal Local Rules: and F.R.A.P. (3d) ‘I 28 Rubuke/Rebuttal [sic] as Waiver Estoppel’ and/or ‘Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings 1 1 and/or Recommendations.’” (ECF No. 11). That filing is best read as objections to the 2 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has 4 conducted a de novo review of the case. None of Plaintiff’s objections provide a legal basis on 5 which to question the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Having carefully 6 reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 7 recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 8 9 10 Based on the foregoing, 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 26, 2018, (ECF No. 10), are adopted in full; 11 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is denied; 12 3. To the extent Plaintiff’s objections, (ECF No. 11), are to constitute a motion 13 14 15 for relief, it is denied; and 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $400 filing fee or the action will be dismissed. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: April 13, 2018 19 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2