Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00917/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00917-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernest Miller
Plaintiff
Roche
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Although the court docket indicates a filing date of April 16, 2010 (Dkt. No. 20), April

1

9, 2010 is the date on which petitioner, proceeding pro se, signed and delivered the instant

petition to prison officials for mailing (id. at 2). Pursuant to the mailbox rule, that date is

considered the filing date of the petition. See Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th

Cir. 2003). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST MILLER,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-0917 JAM KJN P

vs.

ROCHE, ORDER 

Defendant. 

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 17, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. On April 9, 2010,1

plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

Case 2:09-cv-00917-JAM -KJN Document 21 Filed 05/13/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

[magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The

court presumes that any findings of fact not objected to 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed findings and recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 17, 2010 (Dkt. No. 19), are

adopted in full;

2. The order granting plaintiff in forma pauperis status (Dkt. No. 11), is vacated;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 6), is denied;

4. Plaintiff is directed to pay in full the $350 filing fee within 21 days of the filing

date of this order (failure timely to pay the full filing fee will result in dismissal of this action);

and 

5. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 16), is denied.

DATED: May 13, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00917-JAM -KJN Document 21 Filed 05/13/10 Page 2 of 2