The Bank of New York Mellon v. Ingram

Filing 23

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that 2 and 14 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis are denied. Deft Ingram is ordered to pay the $350 filing fee within 14 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/4/13. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
formally known as The Bank of New York,
as Trustee For The Certificateholders of
the CWABS Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2006-19, its Successors and/or Assigns
v.
LAWRENCE J. INGRAM, and/or
all occupants of 7729 Pecan Drive,
Beaumont, TX 77713

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

NO. 1:12-CV-483

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 5, 2012, pro se Defendant Lawrence J. Ingram (“Ingram”) removed this
forcible detainer action from the Justice Court of Jefferson County, Texas, Precinct 1, Place 1.
When doing so, Ingram also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.)
The Court referred the case to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to General Order 05-07. Thereafter, the case was transferred the Honorable Zack
Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. (Doc. No. 8.)
On October 19, 2012, Judge Hawthorn entered an order directing Ingram to file within
seven days a new, fully completed in forma pauperis application along with an explanation for
discrepancies that Judge Hawthorn found between Ingram’s current in forma pauperis application
and an application filed in a prior, related case. (Doc. No. 9.) On November 2, 2012, Judge
Hawthorn filed his report (Doc. No. 11) recommending that the Court deny Ingram’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis because Ingram had failed to file a new application and explanation
within seven days as ordered. On November 8, 2012, Ingram filed a new application to proceed

1 of 3

in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 14), stating that he has a monthly income of $1,790.00; however,
Ingram still did not explain, as ordered by the magistrate judge, why he did not include this income
in his original application. On November 26, 2012, Ingram filed an objection to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation (along with an objection to another report, which has since
been withdrawn). (Doc. No. 17.)
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c) (Supp. IV 2011); FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they
object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.”
Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds
by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Ingram’s only
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on his in forma pauperis
application are that he believed the magistrate judge had given him seven days to respond in
addition to the fourteen days he believed he was entitled, and he did not realize that the magistrate
judge could order him to respond within seven days. See (Doc. No. 17, at 4–5.) Ingram’s
objections are meritless: the magistrate judge’s order was perfectly clear, and Ingram was
obligated to comply with that order. (Doc. No. 9, at 2) (“It is, therefore, ORDERED that
Defendant Lawrence Ingram file a written description with this Court, within seven (7) days of
being served with this order . . . .”). Furthermore, the Court independently finds that Ingram’s
motions to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied. Ingram’s most recent motion (Doc. No.
14) states that he has a monthly income of $1,790.00, of which $1,100 is spent on an automobile
lease. In light of his monthly income and ability to afford $1,100 a month on an automobile lease,

2 of 3

the Court finds that Ingram is financially able to pay the $350 filing fee necessitated by his
removal of this action.
It is ORDERED that Ingram’s objections (Doc. No. 17, at 4–5) are OVERRULED; the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 11) is ADOPTED; and Ingram’s
motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 2, 14) are DENIED.
Ingram is ORDERED to pay the $350.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days from the
date of this order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4 day of March, 2013.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

3 of 3