Hauck v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Albert J. Hauck, Jr. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/28/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 10/11/2016. (pes)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALBERT J. HAUCK, JR., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 2:16-cv-970 Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Jolson COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 1). In Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331 (1948), the Supreme Court set forth the legal standard applicable to a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. An affidavit of poverty is sufficient if it reflects that the plaintiff cannot pay the Court’s filing fee without depriving himself and his dependents the “necessities of life.” Id. at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the plaintiff need not be totally destitute in order to proceed in forma pauperis, paying the filing fee must be more than a mere hardship. See Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F. App’x. 239, 240 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “the question is whether the court costs can be paid without undue hardship”). Consequently, unless it is clear that the one-time payment of the Court’s filing fee will render the plaintiff unable to provide for himself and his dependents, the Court cannot grant him in forma pauperis status. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. In this case, it appears that Plaintiff’s assets exceed his liabilities to such an extent that paying the one-time filing fee of $400.00 would not impose an undue hardship upon him. That is, paying the filing fee would not cause Plaintiff to deprive himself the necessities of life. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. 1). Procedure on Objections If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: October 11, 2016 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?