(PC) Prince v. San Joaquin County Sheriff et al, No. 2:2019cv00887 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/8/2021 ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations in full; DENYING 13 Motion to Proceed IFP; DENYING 18 Motion for Release; and SUMARILLY DISMISSING this action for failure to file a completed in forma pauperis application or, in the alternative, to pay the filing and administrative fees. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Prince v. San Joaquin County Sheriff et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVIN CAPONE PRINCE, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-0887 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who currently appears to be a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has 19 filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 24, 2021, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff has not 24 filed objections to the findings and recommendations, nor has he responded to the court’s order in 25 any way. 26 The court also notes for the record that on March 31, 2021, the findings and 27 recommendations served on plaintiff were returned to the court as undeliverable. It is the 28 plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Therefore, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the address of record of the party is fully 2 effective. Furthermore, more than sixty-three days have passed since the court order was returned 3 by the postal service, and plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of a current address. 4 See Local Rule 183(b). 5 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 6 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 7 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 8 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 9 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 10 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued March 24, 2021 (ECF No. 20), are 13 ADOPTED in full; 14 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; 15 3. Plaintiff’s motion for release (ECF No. 18) is DENIED, and 16 4. This action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED for failure to file a completed in forma 17 pauperis application or, in the alternative, to pay the filing and administrative fees. 18 DATED: July 8, 2021. 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.
