Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

THURMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 1:12-CV-178. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20120809a00 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER CURTIS L. COLLIER, Chief District Judge. On July 20, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a report and recommendation ("R&R") (Court File No. 4) regarding Plaintiff Rebecca W. Thurman's ("Plaintiff") Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application") (Court File No. 2). The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff's Application be denied and the case be closed because the Application lacked sufficient information for the court to determine Plaintiff's indig
More

ORDER

CURTIS L. COLLIER, Chief District Judge.

On July 20, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a report and recommendation ("R&R") (Court File No. 4) regarding Plaintiff Rebecca W. Thurman's ("Plaintiff") Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("Application") (Court File No. 2). The magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff's Application be denied and the case be closed because the Application lacked sufficient information for the court to determine Plaintiff's indigence and Plaintiff failed to supplement the Application within the thirty-day time period allowed by the court. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R (Court File No. 5). Plaintiff concedes the Application lacked the requisite information and that she failed to supplement the Application during the time period allowed. Therefore, she is not requesting reconsideration of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny her Application. Instead, she merely requests that the case not be closed, especially since she subsequently paid the filing fee and the complaint was timely filed.

The Court agrees with the magistrate judge's recommendation that Plaintiff's Application should be denied because it was incomplete and never properly supplemented. At the same time, this issue is now moot because Plaintiff has submitted her filing fee. Moreover, Plaintiff has submitted a timely complaint. Therefore, no grounds remain for dismissal of the case. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS IN PART the magistrate judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations in the R&R (Court File No. 4). Defendant's Application shall be DENIED as MOOT (Court File No. 2). The Court REJECTS the magistrate judge's recommendation that the case be closed. Plaintiff's case shall proceed before this Court.

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