From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quair v. Cru

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 25, 2021
1:21-cv-00560-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00560-NONE-SKO

06-25-2021

DAVID SABINO QUAIR, III, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER CRU, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FILING FEE

(DOC. NOS. 2, 5)

Plaintiff David Sabino Quair is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.

On April 8, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued an amended order granting plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. No. 2), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and directing the Sheriff Department officials at the Kings County Jail to collect the required filing fee payments from plaintiff's jail trust account and forward them to the Clerk of Court. (Doc. No. 4.)

On April 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge vacated the amended order granting plaintiff's IFP application. (Doc. No. 5.) The magistrate judge also issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's IFP application be denied because, prior to filing suit, plaintiff had accrued more than three “strike” dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 5.) The magistrate judge further found that the allegations in plaintiff's complaint failed to show that plaintiff was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed this action. (Id. at 2-3.) No objections to the findings and recommendations were filed and the time to do so has passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on April 21, 2021 (Doc. No. 5) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied;

3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee of $402 in full to proceed with this action;

4. Failure to pay the filing fee within the time provided will result in dismissal of this action; and

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Kings County

Jail and on the Financial Department of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Quair v. Cru

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 25, 2021
1:21-cv-00560-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Quair v. Cru

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SABINO QUAIR, III, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER CRU, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 25, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-00560-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2021)