Opinion
C. A. 24-00175-WES-PAS
07-02-2024
STEVEN F., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff, Steven F. (“Plaintiff”), filed an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 4. Two days later, on May 9, 2024, the Court issued an order directing that, on or before May 30, 2024, Plaintiff “supplement his financial affidavit to identify his spouse's income and whether he owns any real estate, and if he does, any equity in that real estate.” ECF No. 5 at 1. The Court advised Plaintiff that it would rule on the motion once the supplemental information was received; if a supplement was not received, however, the Court warned Plaintiff that it may deny the motion. Id. at 1-2.
It is now more than thirty days past the deadline and the Court has not received any supplement from Plaintiff, notwithstanding the fact that the Clerk's Office also contacted Plaintiff's counsel to inquire about the matter. Based on Plaintiff's failure to file any supplemental information, I recommend that Plaintiff's amended motion for IFP (ECF No. 4) be DENIED and that he be ordered to pay the filing fee within fourteen days of the adoption of this report and recommendation. If he does not pay the filing fee within that period, I recommend that the case be dismissed. Any objections to this report and recommendation must be specific and must be served and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of service of this report and recommendation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); DRI LR Cv 72. Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the District Court and the right to appeal the District Court's decision. See Brenner v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 867 F.3d 294, 297 n.7 (1st Cir. 2017); Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
Because the denial of an IFP motion is the functional equivalent of dismissal, I am addressing this issue in a report and recommendation. Keselica v. Wall. No. CA 07-224 ML, 2007 WL 2126518, at *1 (D.R.I. July 23, 2007) (denial of IFP motion is functional equivalent of dismissal, magistrate judge should issue a report and recommendation for a final decision by the district court); James v Kijakazi. C. A. No. 22-230JJM, 2022 WL 2290603, at *1 (D.R.I. June 24, 2022) (same).