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)

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