Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rine v. Commissioner of Social Security, 5:17 CV 2654. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20180122971 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. , District Judge . Currently pending before the court in the above-captioned case is Plaintiff Chad Rine's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). (ECF No. 3.) For the following reasons, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg denying Plaintiff's IFP Motion. (ECF No. 5.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP Motion is hereby denied. On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this civil acti
More

ORDER

Currently pending before the court in the above-captioned case is Plaintiff Chad Rine's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). (ECF No. 3.) For the following reasons, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg denying Plaintiff's IFP Motion. (ECF No. 5.) Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP Motion is hereby denied.

On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this civil action, appealing the final administration decision denying Plaintiff's Social Security Disability Benefits application for lack of a disability. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed the instant IFP Motion. (ECF No. 3.) On December 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Greenberg submitted his R&R, recommending that Plaintiff's IFP Motion be denied because, "[i]n light of Plaintiff and his spouse's other assets, and in the absence of evidence or an explanation to the contrary, it does not appear the cost of filing would impose an undue hardship on Plaintiff." (R&R 4.) Magistrate Judge Greenberg further recommended that, should the R&R be adopted, Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. (Id.)

As of the date of this Order, no objections to the R&R have been filed. Because a timely objection has not been filed, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require the district court review of a magistrate[] [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.").

In conclusion, after careful review of Magistrate Judge Greenberg's R&R and all other relevant documents in the record, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts as its own Magistrate Judge Greenberg's R&R (ECF No. 5) in its entirety and hereby denies Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff shall pay the $400 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

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