Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19cv252-TSL-RHW
04-15-2019
LADRECO HOWARD PLAINTIFF v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DEFENDANT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is [2] the pro se Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this lawsuit filed April 11, 2019 challenging actions by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right. Evensky v. Wright, 45 F.R.D. 506, 507-08 (N.D. Miss. 1968). Whether to grant or deny leave to proceed IFP is left to the sound discretion of the District Court. Willard v. U.S., 299 F.Supp. 1175, 1177 (N.D. Miss. 1969), aff'd, 422 F.2d 810 (5th Cir. 1970). Plaintiff submitted an IFP application in which every response he provided on the sworn application was "N/A." The Court has thus been provided no information to warrant granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP.
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP be denied.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of a Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file written objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically identifying the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which she objects. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. After service of objections, opposing parties have seven days to either serve and file a response or notify the District Judge that they do not intend to respond to the objection. Except on grounds of plain error, a party cannot attack on appeal any proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the District Court to which he did file timely objections. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
Signed, this the 15th day of April 2019.
/s/_________
ROBERT H. WALKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE