Opinion
4:23-CV-20-CDL-MSH
03-01-2023
ANNETTE WALKER-GOGGINS, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CLAY D. LAND U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed her pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The same day, Plaintiff also moved to proceed in this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) using the Court's long form application to proceed in the District Court without prepaying fees or costs (ECF No. 3). The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 4), explaining that she provided incomplete and inadequate answers in her IFP application. The Magistrate Judge thus ordered Plaintiff to pay the full $402 filing fee within fourteen days of his order, lest the Court dismiss the action. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee within that time.
Plaintiff appealed the Magistrate Judge's order denying her IFP motion (ECF No. 5). The Court reviews this appeal de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Faulkner v. Monroe Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 523 Fed.Appx. 696, 701 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“A party may serve and file objections to a magistrate judge's nondispositive order, which does not dispose of any claims or defenses, within 14 days of being served with the order.”). After de novo review, the Court finds that her appeal lacks merit.
Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as directed by the Magistrate Judge's order is grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. She may refile the action with the accompanying filing fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.