1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 PATRICK J. BOOTH, Case No. 2:25-cv-3039-DJC-JDP (P)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 L. GARNICA, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On January 30, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and
21 recommendations herein which were served on Plaintiff, and which contained notice
22 to Plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed
23 within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and
24 recommendations.
25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United
26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law
27 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)
28 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the
1 || district court and [the appellate] court ....”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds
2 || the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper
3 | analysis.
4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 30, 2026, are adopted in
6 full;
7 2. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, is DENIED;
8 3. Plaintiff is directed to tender the filing fee within twenty-one days of this
9 order; and
10 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge.
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 | Dated: _April 27, 2026 “Daniel CoD tto—
Hon. Daniel | od
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.