Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18CV281-LG-RHW
10-11-2018
LEO MCDONALD, JR. PLAINTIFF v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Leo McDonald Jr.'s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. [2]. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed on August 24, 2018, a complaint alleging employment discrimination by Defendant Huntington Ingalls Industries.
Section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) is intended to provide access to federal courts for plaintiffs who lack the financial resources to pay any part of the statutory filing costs. See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138 (5 Cir. 1988); Williams v. Estelle, 681 F.2d 946 (5 Cir. 1982). The Court, in exercising its discretion, considered the following factors: Is the plaintiff barred from the federal courts by reason of his impecunity? Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d 820 (3 Cir. 1975). Is access to the courts blocked by the imposition of an undue hardship? Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115 (5 Cir. 1969). Is the plaintiff forced to contribute his last dollar, or render himself destitute to prosecute his claim? Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 337 (1941).
A review of Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application reveals a monthly income of $4,200.00 and monthly expenses of approximately $3,085.00. In other words, his monthly income exceeds monthly expenses by more than $1,000.00. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff is not indigent under the law and should not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis.
RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's [2] Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to this report must serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy unless the time period is modified by the District Court. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions and recommendations to which objections are being made; the District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. Such party shall file the objections with the Clerk of the Court and serve the objections on the District Judge and on all other parties. A party's failure to file such objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation contained in this report shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. Additionally, a party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in this report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that have been accepted by the district court and for which there is no written objection. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 11th day of October, 2018.
/s/_________
ROBERT H. WALKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE