Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-00497-TFM-N
01-04-2022
JEFFREY DUANE FORD, Plaintiff, v. LOANCARE SERVICING, LLC et al. Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHERINE P. NELSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jeffrey Duane Ford, who is proceeding without counsel (pro se), initiated the above-styled civil action by filing a complaint (Doc. 1), along with a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, or in forma pauperis (“IFP”), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Doc. 2). The Court ordered him to complete an amended IFP application using the Court's form. (Doc. 4). Ford complied, filing an amended IFP application on December 3, 2021. (Doc. 5). Upon review of the amended IFP motion, the Court determined that Ford did not qualify for IFP and ordered him to pay the $402 filing fee no later than December 29, 2021. (Doc. 6). The Court also warned Ford that if he failed to comply, the undersigned would enter a recommendation that he “be denied leave to proceed IFP in this action, and that this action be dismissed without prejudice . . . .” (Doc. 6, PageID.32). That order has not been returned to the Court as undeliverable, and to date Ford has failed to pay the filing fee.
The assigned District Judge referred this motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (electronic reference 12/3/2021).
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1), and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S), the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Ford's amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice unless Ford pays the $402 filing fee within the time period for submitting objections to this recommendation. DONE this the 4th day of January 2022.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.