(PC) Van Huisen v. Chief of Staff et al

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/03/2024 ADOPTING the 24 Findings and Recommendations in full, DENYING the 5 , 7 , 11 , 21 & 25 Motions and DISMISSING this action due to plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee. CASE CLOSED. (Spichka, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:23-cv-02815-DAD-JDP (PC) v. CHIEF OF STAFF, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION (Doc. Nos. 5, 7, 11, 21, 24, 25) 16 17 Plaintiff Gregory Scott Van Huisen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On April 3, 2024, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 20 21 ordered plaintiff to pay the required $402.00 filing fee in order to proceed with this action. (Doc. 22 No. 20.) Plaintiff was warned in that order that his failure to pay the filing fee in full within thirty 23 (30) days would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Id. at 2.) Nonetheless, 24 plaintiff did not timely pay the filing fee. Plaintiff did file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, but 25 that appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff appealed the assigned 26 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, which is not a final or appealable order. (Doc. 27 Nos. 16, 19.) 28 ///// 1 1 On June 5, 2024, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 2 recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee. 3 (Doc. No. 24.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 4 contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 5 service. (Id. at 2.) On June 10, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 6 recommendations. (Doc. No. 25.) 7 In his objections, plaintiff does not meaningfully address the fact that he has failed to pay 8 the filing fee, which is required to proceed with this action. Rather, plaintiff merely asserts in 9 conclusory fashion that “this case qualifiable [sic] for imminent danger.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s 10 objections simply provide no basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 11 recommendations. 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 13 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 14 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 15 Accordingly: 16 1. 17 The findings and recommendations issued on June 5, 2024 (Doc. No. 24) are adopted in full; 18 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee; 19 3. Plaintiff’s pending motions (Doc. Nos. 5, 7, 11, 21, 25) are denied as having been 20 rendered moot by this order; and 21 4. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. July 3, 2024 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?