IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

KENYATTA MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-04665-SDG LOUIS DEJOY and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Kenyatta Mitchell’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF 1], United States Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s December 19, 2022 Final Report and Recommendation (the R&R) [ECF 3], and Mitchell’s Objections to the R&R [ECF 5]. The Objections [ECF 5] are OVERRULED and the R&R [ECF 3] is ADOPTED. The Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On November 22, 2022, Mitchell filed an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis—that is, an application to serve her complaint on Defendants without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, pursuant to

(a)(1).1 On November 28, Judge Anand found that Mitchell’s application was incomplete and ordered her to file a completed form by December 13, 2022.2 Mitchell failed to comply, and the R&R recommends that Mitchell’s application be denied and the case be dismissed without prejudice.3 Mitchell objected to the R&R

on December 30.4 A party challenging a report and recommendation issued by a federal magistrate judge must file written objections that specifically identify the portions

of the proposed findings and recommendations to which an objection is made and must assert a specific basis for the objection. United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009). In its broad discretion, the district court may consider an

argument that was never presented to the magistrate judge, or it may decline to consider a party’s argument that was not first presented to the magistrate judge. Williams v. McNeil,

, 1290–92 (11th Cir. 2009). Mitchell’s Objections fail to target specific portions of the proposed findings

and recommendations or explain why the R&R incorrectly concludes that she did

1 ECF 1. 2 ECF 2, at 2. 3 ECF 3, at 2. 4 ECF 5. not properly complete her Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Instead, her Objections merely ask for reconsideration. Because Mitchell does not object to the finding that she failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order in amending her in forma pauperis application, her Objections to the R&R are

overruled. Mitchell also requests legal assistance for the first time in her Objections.5 Because this request was never presented to the Magistrate Judge, the Court need

not consider it. Williams, 557 F.3d at 1290–92. At this stage, counsel appointment is unwarranted due to the action’s dismissal. However, Mitchell may renew her request for legal assistance should she choose to file a new in forma pauperis

application. The Court OVERRULES Mitchell’s Objections [ECF 5] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF 3] as the Order of this Court. The Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

5 Id. at 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. SO ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2023.

Steven D. Grimberg United States District Court Judge