(PC) Tramontana v. Paik et al, No. 2:2017cv01506 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/25/2018 ADOPTING in Full 10 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; and Plaintiff shall pay the filing fees in full within 30 days of the date of this order or face dismissal of the action under EDCA Local Rule 110. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Tramontana v. Paik 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 11 TERRENCE TRAMONTANA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:17-CV-1506-KJM-DMC-P v. ORDER S. PAIK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 19 Eastern District of California local rules. On August 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time therein specified. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been 23 filed. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 25 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 26 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 27 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2018, are adopted in 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied; 3. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fees in full within 30 days of the date of this 3 full; 4 5 6 and 7 order or face dismissal of the action under Eastern District of California Local Rule 110. 8 DATED: September 25, 2018. 9 10 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.