Reid v. Aubrey's Restaurant Inc. et al (TWP1)

Filing 65

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; adopting 63 Report and Recommendations. After careful consideration of the record as a whole and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Jud ge, and for the reasons set out in that Report and Recommendation which are incorporated by reference herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation be ADOPTED and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis be DEN IED. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate fee to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days of this order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals pursuant to the requirement set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(5). Signed by District Judge Clifton L Corker on 05/22/2020. (Copy of Order mailed to Nigel Reid, II) (AMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
GREENEVILLE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NIGEL M REID II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AUBREY'S RESTAURANT INC.,
Defendant.

2:18-CV-00090-DCLC

ORDER
This matter is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge [Doc. 63]. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 64]. This matter is now ripe for resolution.
In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Wyrick recommends that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis be denied as Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), which states that a party who desires to appeal in forma
pauperis must file a motion in the district court, and attach an affidavit that: (A) shows in the detail
prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for
fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends
to present on appeal.
First, Plaintiff failed to include the amount of income received from his Social Security
Disability Insurance (“SSDI”), while stating that it is his only income. As such, Magistrate Judge
Wyrick was unable to determine whether Plaintiff qualified financially under Fed.R.App.P.
24(a)(1)(A). Second, Magistrate Judge Wyrick found that Plaintiff did “not adequately identify the

1
Case 2:18-cv-00090-DCLC-CRW Document 65 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 515

issues he intends to present on appeal nor why he is entitled to “correct” his mistakes on his
complaint” as required by Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1)(B) and (C) [Doc. 63, pg. 3].
In his objection, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, attempts to correct the errors the Magistrate
Judge raised in her Report and Recommendation. He states that his income from SSDI totals
$861.00 a month, which is just sufficient to pay his bills and leaves very little leftover, if any [Doc.
64, pg. 2]. Plaintiff also restates his claim from his notice of appeal verbatim, requesting the Court
to “allow [him] to correct [his] mistakes on [his] complaint to show of a matter of law that my
rights where [sic] violated by the 42 U.S.C. 1983, Title VII or the ADA Act of 1993.” [Doc. 64,
pg. 2]. He also includes a list of issues, including his basic claims such as race discrimination,
retaliation, and disability [Doc. 64, pg. 3]. He does not address any specific aspects of this Court’s
ruling on his Motion for Summary Judgment that he wishes to appeal.
After careful consideration of the record as a whole and the Report and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons set out in that Report and
Recommendation which are incorporated by reference herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Report and Recommendation be ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed on Appeal in
Forma Pauperis be DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his appeal, he must pay the
$505.00 appellate fee to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days of this order.
Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the
Court of Appeals pursuant to the requirement set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(5).
SO ORDERED:

s/ Clifton L. Corker
United States District Judge

2
Case 2:18-cv-00090-DCLC-CRW Document 65 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 516