(PC) Vargas v. Gonzales et al, No. 2:2021cv01839 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/16/2022 DENYING 2 , 6 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to pay the entire $402 in fees within 30 days of the filing of this order. Order 9 Findings and Recommendations are adopted in full. Plaintiff's 10 Objections are OVERRULED. This matter is referred back to assigned Magistrate Judge Allison Claire for all further pretrial proceedings.(Perdue, C.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Vargas v. Gonzales et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO JAVIER VARGAS, JR., 12 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-01839-TLN-AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER JOSIE GONZALES, et al., 15 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 20, 2022, the magistrate judge filed an order and findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections 22 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 9.) 23 Plaintiff has filed objections to the order denying counsel and the findings and recommendations. 24 (ECF No. 10.) 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 27 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 28 analysis. With respect to the order on Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, Federal Rule 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate 2 judges and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly 3 erroneous or is contrary to law.” The April 20, 2022 order of the Magistrate Judge is not clearly 4 erroneous or contrary to law and the objections will be overruled. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 20, 2022 (ECF No. 9), are adopted in 7 full; 8 2. Plaintiff’s Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 6) are DENIED; 9 3. Within thirty days of the filing of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the entire $402.00 in 10 11 12 13 required fees or face dismissal of the case; 3. Plaintiff’s Objections to the denial of his Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10 at 30-31) are OVERRULED; and 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 14 proceedings. 15 DATED: June 16, 2022 16 17 18 19 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.
