Madden v. Brennan

Filing 126

ORDER denying 121 Motion ; denying 123 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; adopting Report and Recommendations re 125 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 10/30/2018. (BDG, ) Order mailed to Madden.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
BERLINDA A. MADDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-296
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
On October 12, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee submitted a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 125) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing
orders of this Court. After Plaintiff Berlinda A. Madden filed a Request to be Placed on a
Payment Plan for Appeal (Doc. 121), Magistrate Judge Lee entered an order directing the
Clerk’s office to mail an in forma pauperis application to Plaintiff and requiring Plaintiff
to return the completed application within 10 days. (Doc. 122). Plaintiff timely filed the
application. (Doc. 123). Upon review of the application, Magistrate Judge Lee determined
that Plaintiff had reported sufficient resources to pay the filing fees after her monthly
living expenses were satisfied. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Lee recommended that the
Request to Be Placed on a Payment Plan for Appeal (Doc. 121) and Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis With Supporting Documentation (Doc. 123) be denied.
Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised Defendant that she had 14 days within
which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive
her right to appeal. (Doc. 125 at 4 n.3); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to

require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a
de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Magistrate
Judge Lee likewise referred Plaintiff to a letter from the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit (Doc. 120), advising Plaintiff of her ability to renew her motion for
pauper status in the Sixth Circuit if denied by this Court. (Id.). Plaintiff did not file an
objection to the Report and Recommendation and the time do so has now passed. The
Court has nonetheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation as well as the record
and agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee’s well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 125).
Plaintiff’s Request to be Placed on a Payment Plan for Appeal (Doc. 121) and Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis With Supporting Documentation (Doc. 123) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2018.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._____
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2