From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Epperson v. Kerr

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 17, 2022
1:22-cv-01195-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2022)

Opinion

1:22-cv-01195-JLT-SAB

11-17-2022

CHRIS EPPERSON, Plaintiff, v. YOHANNA RENEE KERR, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PA UPERIS BE DENIED (DOCS. 2, 5) 21-DAY DEADLINE

The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action because the initially filed application contained insufficient information, and the Plaintiff did not file a long form application as ordered. (Doc. 10.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff, and it contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 14 days after service. (Id. at 2.) The findings and recommendations explained also that if Plaintiff filed the long form application that demonstrated entitled to proceed without payment of fees, the Court would vacate the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff did not file objections nor a long form application.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 19, 2022, (Doc. 5), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2), is DENIED.
3. Within 21 days following the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time, this action will be dismissed without further notice.

The Magistrate Judge's order requiring a long form application denied the initial application without prejudice, and to the extent this Court is conducting a de novo review, the Court finds the initial application should be denied based on insufficient information and the failure to file a long form application as ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Epperson v. Kerr

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 17, 2022
1:22-cv-01195-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2022)
Case details for

Epperson v. Kerr

Case Details

Full title:CHRIS EPPERSON, Plaintiff, v. YOHANNA RENEE KERR, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 17, 2022

Citations

1:22-cv-01195-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2022)