Opinion
1:19-cv-01724-DAD-EPG (PC)
08-23-2021
CLARENCE LONNELL ROBERSON, Plaintiff, v. L.T., 2nd Watch SGT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVOKE PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING SECURITY
(DOC. NOS. 26, 27, 38)
Plaintiff Clarence Lonnell Roberson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On April 8, 2021, defendants filed a motion seeking an order revoking plaintiff's in forma pauperis status, or in the alternative, for an order requiring plaintiff to post security in the amount of $3, 575 because defendants assert plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. (Doc. No. 26.) Defendants also filed a request for judicial notice of documents filed in six of plaintiff's prior cases. (Doc. No. 27.) On April 22, 2021, plaintiff filed his opposition, and on April 28, 2021, defendants filed a reply thereto. (Doc. Nos. 31, 33.)
On June 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge took judicial notice of the documents and issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendants' motion be denied because defendants had not demonstrated that plaintiff had received three dismissals that count as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that he was a vexatious litigant. (Doc. No. 38.) Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 9.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 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, the court concludes that the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations entered on June 16, 2021 (Doc. No. 38) are adopted in full;
2. Defendants' motion for an order revoking plaintiff s in forma pauperis status or, in the alternative, that plaintiff be required to post security (Doc. No. 26) is denied; and
3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.