Opinion
Civil Action 4:21-CV-1047-P(BJ)
09-14-2021
ELIZABETH LUCILE CANADY, Plaintiff, v. DR. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
JEFFREY L. CURETON UNITED SATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this case, Plaintiff has filed a civil case with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Resolution of the motion was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Miscellaneous Order No. 6. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
Order for the Adoption of Rules for the Exercise of Powers and Performances of duties by United States Magistrate Judges, signed May 5, 2005.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This case is a new civil action.
B. PARTIES
Elizabeth Lucile Canady is the plaintiff. The defendant/respondent is the Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration.
C. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Plaintiff accompanied her complaint with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et. seq. That motion/application includes the income and asset information for the plaintiff. She lists that she receives $2,160 in monthly income. IFP Motion 1-2, ECF No. 2. Canady lists no dependents. The applicable poverty guideline for a family of one is $12,800. At an income of $2,160 a month, Plaintiff s total annual household income of $25,920, is several thousand dollars above the poverty level for a family of one. The information in this application thus shows that Plaintiff has sufficient resources available to pay the applicable fees. Thus, after review and consideration of the application/motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned finds the motion to proceed IFP should be denied, and will make such a recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs September 10, 2021 motion to proceed in forma pauperis [docket no. 2] be DENIED by the district judge.
It is further RECOMMENDED that the district judge inform Plaintiff that the complaint will be subject to dismissal without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), unless Plaintiff pays to the clerk of Court the filing and administrative fees of $4O2.OO within seven (7) days after the district judge's order.
In addition to the filing fee of $350, the District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule requires payment of an administrative fee for filing a civil action in district court of $52. See 28 U.S.C.§ 1914(a) and District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, note 14.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAIL URE TO OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each party to this action has the rightto serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Setvs. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until September 28, 2021 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge.,