Ireland v. Buffett et al, No. 1:2022cv00497 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 3 Findings and Recommendations Recommending Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be Denied; ORDER Directing Payment of Filing Fee in Full, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 06/10/2022. Filing Fee Due Within Thirty-Days. (Maldonado, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ireland v. Buffett et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME IRELAND, JR., 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. WARREN BUFFETT, et al., 15 Case No. 1:22-cv-00497-AWI-BAM ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED Defendants. (Doc. 2) 16 ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE IN FULL 17 18 Plaintiff Jerome Ireland, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on 19 20 April 27, 2022. (Doc. 1.) Concurrent with his complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed 21 in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.) On April 29, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 23 recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs be 24 denied and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to procced with this 25 action. (Doc. 3.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained 26 notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) 27 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations on May 3, 2022. (Doc. 4.) 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s 3 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 4 by proper analysis. Although Plaintiff states in his objections that he does not have “any other 5 extra money,” he also indicates that he makes “$900 A HOUR FORE PROFIT.” (Doc. 4 at 2.) 6 Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis to reject the magistrate judge’s findings and 7 recommendations. Plaintiff has not made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that he is 8 unable to pay the required filing fee in this action. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 29, 2022 (Doc. 3) are adopted in 11 full; 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is denied (Doc. 12 13 2); 14 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff is required to pay the 15 $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action; and 4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for 16 17 failure to prosecute. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 10, 2022 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
