REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 2]

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, Magistrate Judge.

On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff Ciara Gater, proceeding on behalf of J.G., filed a complaint, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a request for service of the summons and complaint by the United States Marshal Service. [ECF Nos. 1-3]. The application should be DENIED because Gater has not demonstrated that the she is entitled to a waiver of the filing fees.1

"[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If a motion under Section 1915(a) is accompanied by a facially sufficient affidavit, the court should allow the complaint to be filed. Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d 260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990). "In determining IFP eligibility, courts will generally look to whether the persons are employed, the person's annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may possess. Assets include equity in real estate and automobiles." Carroll v. Onemain Fin. Inc., No. 14-CV-14514, 2015 WL 404105, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts consider "not only an IFP applicant's personal income, but also his or her other financial resources, including the resources that could be made available from the applicant's spouse, or other family members." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The application here says nothing about Gater's financial resources. She did not answer questions regarding her gross pay and wages, how much money the she has in cash and bank accounts, or her assets, expenses, dependents and debts; she repeatedly wrote "N/A" or left responses completely blank, including to questions that required her to check a yes or no response. [ECF No. 2]. The Court RECOMMENDS that Gater's application be DENIED.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

Each objection must be labeled as "Objection #1," "Objection #2," etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in the same order and labeled as "Response to Objection #1," "Response to Objection #2," etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.