Gray v. Tilton et al

Filing 50

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/6/2014 ORDERING that the 47 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Defendants' 20 motion to revoke plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and to dismiss this action is GRANTED. Th e 10 order directing the payment of the filing fee by deductions from plaintiff's inmate trust account is VACATED, and the Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 48 . The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Clerk of the Court shall abandon efforts to collect the filing fee in this case. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Director of CDCR and deliver a copy of this order to the Clerk's financial division. The Clerk is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (cc: Financial and CDCR) (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKY GRAY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2103-KJM-EFB P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

JAMES TILTON, et al.,
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 as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On October 16, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.

24

Plaintiff has, however, filed a request to rescind the filing fee payment order directed to

25

the California Department of Corrections. As plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status will be revoked

26

by this order, that inmate trust account collection order will be vacated. Plaintiff also requests

27

dismissal of the case, as recommended, so that he can refile with prepayment of the filing fee.

28

More recently, plaintiff has filed a “motion for authorization re vexatious litigant.” In light of the
1

1

court’s order below, that motion is disregarded but may be refiled at the time plaintiff refiles his

2

action, if he wishes the court assigned to that action to consider it.

3

Given that no objections have been filed, the court presumes that any findings of fact are

4

correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s

5

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d

6

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and

7

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 16, 2013, are adopted in full;

10
11

2. Defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status and to dismiss this
action (ECF No. 20) is granted;

12
13

3. The order directing the payment of the filing fee by deductions from plaintiff’s inmate
trust account, ECF No. 10, is vacated, and the Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 48;

14
15

4. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Clerk of
the Court shall abandon efforts to collect the filing fee in this case;1

16

5. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Director of CDCR and deliver

17

a copy of this order to the Clerk’s financial division; and

18

6. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

19

Dated: January 6, 2014.

20
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A review of the court’s financial records reveals that no funds have yet been collected from
plaintiff’s inmate trust account to satisfy the filing fee in this action.
2