From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Aug 22, 2016
Case No. 3:16-cv-886-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2016)

Summary

denying IFP where plaintiff's income and assets demonstrated ability to pay the filing fee

Summary of this case from Rivera v. Saul

Opinion

Case No. 3:16-cv-886-J-34MCR

08-22-2016

BRANDI SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.


ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5; Report), entered on July 26, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 2) be denied and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee within 60 days. See Report at 1, 4. Neither party has filed an objection to the Report, and the time for doing so has passed.

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Upon independent review of the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) of Magistrate Judge Richardson is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 24, 2016, to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of August, 2016.

/s/_________

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Sutton v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Aug 22, 2016
Case No. 3:16-cv-886-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2016)

denying IFP where plaintiff's income and assets demonstrated ability to pay the filing fee

Summary of this case from Rivera v. Saul
Case details for

Sutton v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:BRANDI SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 22, 2016

Citations

Case No. 3:16-cv-886-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2016)

Citing Cases

Rivera v. Saul

Against this illustrative list of income/assets and expenses, Plaintiff has not established why taxpayers…