Honorable v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 10

ORDER (1) Sustaining 7 Objections to 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and (2) Granting Plaintiff's 5 Amended Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES HONORABLE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-10502
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) SUSTAINING OBJECTIONS (ECF #7) TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #6) AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED APPLICATION TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF #5)
In this action, Plaintiff James Honorable seeks Social Security Disability
Insurance Benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) On February 12, 2018, Honorable filed
an application to proceed in forma pauperis and without prepayment of the filing fee
(the “Initial IFP Application”). (See Initial IFP Application, ECF #2.) In the Initial
IFP Application, Honorable claimed that he was not earning any wages and did not
have any assets. (See id.)
On February 13, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order to show
cause because she found that the Initial IFP Application was “incomplete” and did
not provide “a sufficient basis to determine whether or not [Honorable] can proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee.” (Show Cause Order, ECF #4 at Pg. ID 8-9.)
1 

Honorable responded to the show cause order on the same day that it was issued by
filing an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis that reflected his current
wages and assets (the “Amended IFP Application”). (See Amended IFP Application,
ECF #5.) The Magistrate Judge thereafter issued a report and recommendation in
which she recommended that the Court deny the Amended IFP Application due, in
part, to the discrepancies between the two applications (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF
#6.)
Honorable filed timely objections to the R&R (the “Objections”). (See
Objections, ECF #7.) Honorable’s counsel explained in the Objections that the
submission of the Initial IFP Application was a clerical error and that as soon as
counsel realized that mistake, counsel immediately filed the Amended IFP
Application. (See id.) The Court accepts the representations of Honorable’s counsel.
It therefore SUSTAINS the Objections (ECF #7) and GRANTS the Amended IFP
Application (ECF #5). Honorable may proceed in forma pauperis and without
prepayment of the filing fee in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2019

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on April 16, 2019, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3