(PC) Jackson v. Singh et al, No. 2:2014cv02809 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/6/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 are ADOPTED in PART; Plaintiff's 2 Application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and as plaintiff has now paid the filing fee, this matter is REMANDED back to the magistrate judge for screening of the complaint pursuant to 28:1915A. (Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Jackson v. Singh et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND D. JACKSON, Sr., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2809-TLN-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SINGH, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 23, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations and has now paid the filing fee. 24 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. In light of Plaintiff’s payment of 26 the filing fee, however, the findings and recommendations will be adopted only to the extent that 27 they recommend denial of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and not to the 28 extent that they recommend dismissal of this action. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 23, 2015, are adopted in part. 3 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied; and 4 3. As Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee, this matter is remanded back to the magistrate 5 judge for screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: July 6, 2015 9 10 11 Troy L. Nunley 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.
