-EFB (PC)Shields v. Foston et al, No. 2:2011cv00015 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/12/2011 ORDERING that the 8 findings and recommendations filed April 20, 2011, are adopted in full. Plaintiff's 7 January 28, 2011 application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff is directed to pay the $350 filing fee within 30 days. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in dismissal of this action.(Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-EFB (PC)Shields v. Foston et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 REMON SHIELDS, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. D. FOSTON, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. CIV S-11-0015 JAM EFB P ORDER / 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 April 20, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections 21 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed 22 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 entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 20, 2011, are adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s January 28, 2011 application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; 4 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay the $350 filing fee within 30 days; and 5 4. Plaintiff is admonished that failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in 6 dismissal of this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 7 DATED: August 12, 2011 8 9 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
