Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mubarac v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 17-CV-2557. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20180214a26 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DONALD C. NUGENT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker, which was issued on December 11, 2017 (ECF #4). For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation, is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff, Mr. Mubarac, filed a Complaint challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, denying his application for benefits under the Social Security Act, 42
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker, which was issued on December 11, 2017 (ECF #4). For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation, is hereby ADOPTED.

Plaintiff, Mr. Mubarac, filed a Complaint challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, denying his application for benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 et seq. (ECF #1). Along with this Complaint, Mr. Mubarac filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (ECF #2).

Magistrate Judge Parker reviewed the financial information Mr. Mubarac provided in the Motion to Proceed IFP, and determined that Mr. Mubarac and his spouse have enough financial resources to pay the court's filing fee. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Parker ruled that Mr. Mubarac is not eligible to proceed IFP in this case and recommended that the Court deny Mr. Mubarac's IFP application and require him to pay the filing fee.

Mr. Mubarac did not file an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's report. However, on January 16, 2018, Mr. Mubarac did pay the filing fee of $400.00 by and through the law firm of Wilson & Gillissie. Therefore, the filing fee issue is now moot.

The Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, see Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Seven Hills, 35 F.Supp.2d 575, 577 (N.D. Ohio 1999), and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Therefore, Mr. Mubarac's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF #2) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer