Freeman v. County of Sacramento Dept of Human Assistance

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BENNIE FREEMAN, No. 2:19-cv-02418-KJM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE, et al., 16 Defendants.

18 On December 12, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed.

22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3) are ADOPTED; 3 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED; 4 3. Plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee of $400.00 on an installment schedule, with $50.00 payments to the Clerk of Court due on the following deadlines: 6 February 1, 2020 7 March 1, 2020 8 April 1, 2020 9 May 1, 2020 10 June 1, 2020 11 July 1, 2020 12 August 1, 2020 13 September 1, 2020 14 4. Once the first installment payment is made, the court shall direct service of the complaint on the named defendant; and 16 5. Plaintiff is informed that a failure to timely pay the filing fee, or timely request an extension of time to do so, may result in dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

19 DATED: January 8, 2020.