Favor v. Monae et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; and Ordering Plaintiff to Pay the Filing Fee signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/12/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 Case No. 1:17-cv-00756-LJO-SKO (PC) 9 BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR, Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE MONAE, et al., (Docs. 2, 7) 13 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis along with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny 19 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis based on his untrue poverty allegation. (Doc. 20 9.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff on that same date and allowed 21 for objections to be filed within twenty-one days. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections which are 22 largely nonsensical. (Doc. 9.) 23 In his objections, Plaintiff states that, although he is in state custody, he does not consider 24 25 26 27 himself a state prisoner. (Doc. 9, p. 1.) Plaintiff states that he “seeks payment availability under company entity Brandon Favor, LLP, however under relief identity, plaintiff must not distraught filing order without clarity declared under the penalty of perjury or without complete filing order declared, sound and acceptable. Plaintiff seeks not to address three strikes under § 1915 which 28 1 1 under appeal and demonstrates Central District Clerk filing, retains all and any original medical 2 supplications documents . . . .” The Court is unable to find anything in Plaintiff’s objections that 3 contradict the magistrate judge’s findings that Plaintiff had three strikes under § 1915 prior to 4 filing this action and that Plaintiff was not under imminent danger at the time he filed this 5 complaint to meet the exception under § 1915(g). 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 7 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 8 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. in full; 11 12 2. 3. 4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 17 18 within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to pay in full the $400.00 filing fee for this action; and 15 16 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on June 2, 2017 (Doc. 2), is DENIED; 13 14 the Findings and Recommendations, issued on June 12, 2017 (Doc. 7), are adopted IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ July 12, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?