Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Steven Louis Poslof v. Honorable F. Dana Walton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 21, 2012

STEVEN LOUIS POSLOF,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
HONORABLE F. DANA WALTON, ROBERT BROWN DA, ESQ., CHP OFFICER D.P. SWEENEY 18088, SUPERIOR COURTMARIPOSA COUNTY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AREA 455, COUNTY OF MARIPOSA, "AND ALL OTHER JOHN DOES." DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Steven Poslof ("Plaintiff"), an individual proceeding pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (the "IFP Motion"). (Doc. 2.) On March 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the IFP Motion be denied, citing Plaintiff's lack of candor and cavalier treatment of his purported poverty status in completing his IFP Motion. (Doc. 24, 4: 18-19.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Plaintiff be required to pay a reduced filing fee of $200.00. (Doc. 24, 6: 4.) Additionally, as Plaintiff had filed a Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 23), but had yet been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis or pay his filing fee, the Motion for Default Judgment was not properly before the Court. As such, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Motion for Default Judgment be denied. (Doc. 24, 6: 5.)

The March 2, 2012 Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fifteen days of the date of the Order. (Doc. 24, 6: 6-12.) The parties have not filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, March 2, 2012, is adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied;

3. Plaintiff is required to pay a reduced filing fee of $200.00;

4. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120321

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.