Bryant v. Select Services Portfolio et al

Filing 12

ORDER Adopting 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DENYING Plaintiff's 2 5 11 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees; Thirty Day Deadline signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/12/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARY J. BRYANT,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-1642-LJO-SAB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF
FEES

v.

14

SELECT SERVICES PORTFOLIO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

(ECF No. 2, 5, 8, 11)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

Plaintiff Mary Bryant, proceeding pro se, filed this action on October 31, 2016. (ECF

19 No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
20 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21

On December 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a findings and recommendations

22 which recommended that Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees be
23 denied. The findings and recommendations was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any
24 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days from the
25 date of service. On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a third application to proceed without
26 prepayment of fees and a document entitled “Explanation – Fee Waiver” which the Court
27 construes as objections to the findings and recommendations.
28

While Plaintiff states that she barely has funds to pay for paperwork forms, copies, etc,

1

1 she does not address the findings that she has excess income which provides her with the funds
2 to pay the filing fee in this action. In her current application Plaintiff only lists $600.00 rental
3 income and does not explain why she has deleted the $900.00 per month that she stated that she
4 receives as employment income and the $320.00 she receives from retirement on her December
5 19, 2016 application. (ECF No. 5.) Further, her statement indicates that she does receive this
6 pension from her divorce. (ECF No. 11 at 6.) Plaintiff’s statement addresses the merits of her
7 claims in this action, however at this time the court is considering whether she is entitled to
8 proceed without prepayment of fees, not whether her claims have merit.
9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

10 a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
11 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

The findings and recommendations, filed December 20, 2016, is ADOPTED IN
FULL;

14
15

2.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees is DENIED;

16

3.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the
filing fee of $400.00 in this action; and

17
18

4.

If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee in compliance with this order, this action shall
be dismissed.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 12, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28

2