(PC) Stribling v. Britton, No. 2:2018cv00870 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/13/2018 ADOPTING the 7 findings and recommendations in full. Plaintiff's 4 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the $400 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of this order. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
(PC) Stribling v. Britton Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON LAMONT STRIBLING, 12 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-0870-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER BRITTON, 15 Defendant. 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 as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 3, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the 23 findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 3, 2018, are adopted in full; 4 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is denied; and 5 3. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400 filing fee within fourteen days from the date of this 6 order and is warned that failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action. 7 DATED: June 13, 2018. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 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.