ROBINSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 4:11-cv-63. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20120221a95
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge. In November 2011, Plaintiff filed his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application"). (Doc. 1). In his Application, Plaintiff did not provide information sufficient to determine whether he was indigent. Thus, on November 17, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Susan Lee ordered him to supplement the Application with a more detailed statement of his financial situation. (Doc. 3). Although Magistrate Judge Lee specifically admonished Pla
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge. In November 2011, Plaintiff filed his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application"). (Doc. 1). In his Application, Plaintiff did not provide information sufficient to determine whether he was indigent. Thus, on November 17, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Susan Lee ordered him to supplement the Application with a more detailed statement of his financial situation. (Doc. 3). Although Magistrate Judge Lee specifically admonished Plai..
More
ORDER
HARRY S. MATTICE, Jr., District Judge.
In November 2011, Plaintiff filed his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application"). (Doc. 1). In his Application, Plaintiff did not provide information sufficient to determine whether he was indigent. Thus, on November 17, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Susan Lee ordered him to supplement the Application with a more detailed statement of his financial situation. (Doc. 3). Although Magistrate Judge Lee specifically admonished Plaintiff that his failure to submit the required information may result in the denial of his Application, Plaintiff did not respond to the Magistrate Judge's Order. Consequently, on December 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Lee filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6), in which she recommended that Plaintiff's Application be denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee's conclusion.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Lee's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Magistrate Judge Lee specifically advised Plaintiff that he had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 6 at 1 n.1); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings").
Source: Leagle
