Moore v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED that 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 3/2/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 2/16/2021. (ew)
Case: 2:21-cv-00386-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
THOMAS EUGENE MOORE,
Case No. 2:21-cv-386
Judge Edmund A. Sargus
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
C.R. BARD, INC., et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 2). The Supreme Court, in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
Inc., set forth the legal standard applicable to a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 335 U.S.
331 (1948). 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 his affidavit, Plaintiff attests that he has $10,552 in “cash on hand or money in a savings,
checking, or other account.” (Doc. 2 at 3). Plaintiff also attests that, in the last twelve months, he
Case: 2:21-cv-00386-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 13
received $2,262.40 in employment income, $18,680 in unemployment, and $10,802 in social
security. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff owes $930 a month in credit card bills. (Id. at 3). Importantly, he
has no dependents. (Id. at 2). Thus, it does not appear that paying the one-time filing fee would
cause Plaintiff to be deprived the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339; see also Bush v.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:05-CV-0667, 2007 WL 4365381, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10,
2007) (noting that “[i]n forma pauperis status is usually reserved either for indigent prisoners or
for persons who subsist on small fixed-income payments such as social security, unemployment
compensation, or public assistance and who would truly be required to forego food, shelter,
clothing, or some other necessity were they to devote any of their scant resources to paying a
judicial filing fee”). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED.
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
Case: 2:21-cv-00386-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 14
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: February 16, 2021
/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?