Jones v. Astrue

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Liberally construed, Plaintiff's pro se Motion is a request for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of appeal in this matter. Nevertheless, the court will liberally construe Plaintiff's Motion as a notice of appeal. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (filing no. 41 ) is provisionally granted. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party and e-mailed to USCA 8th Circuit)(JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PAMELA L. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV379

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before me on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis. (Filing No. 41.) The court entered Judgment against Plaintiff in this matter
on March 13, 2014. (See Filing Nos. 39 and 40.) Before Judgment was entered,
Plaintiff was represented by counsel and counsel has not withdrawn. (See Docket
Sheet.) However, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
pro se. (Filing No. 41.)
Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s pro se Motion is a request for leave to appeal
in forma pauperis. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed a notice of appeal in this matter. (Id.;
Docket Sheet.) Nevertheless, the court will liberally construe Plaintiff’s Motion as a
notice of appeal. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
(filing no. 41) is provisionally granted.
2.
The Clerk of the court shall provide the Court of Appeals with a copy of
this Memorandum and Order.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2