(PS) Melton v. Stockton Police Dept.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY RUSSELL MELTON, No. 2:23–cv–01457–KJM–KJN PS Plaintiff, ORDER v. (ECF Nos. 2, 3) STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On July 27, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 3), which were served on plaintiff. No objections period is required for denials of requests to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, i.e. in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Sept. 9, 1998) (“[Plaintiff] was not entitled to file written objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation that [his] application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.”). 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 presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The…