IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

RACHEL BEERS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-00479 v. Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson WILLIAMSON MORGAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC., et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on February 6, 2024, along with summons and United States Marshal forms (Docs. 1, 2). For the following reasons, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED. The Supreme Court, in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., set forth the legal standard applicable to a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

(1948). An affidavit of poverty is sufficient if it reflects that the plaintiff cannot pay the court’s filing fee without depriving himself the “necessities of life.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). Although the plaintiff need not be totally destitute in order to proceed in forma pauperis, paying the filing fee must be more than a mere hardship. See Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,

(6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “the question is whether the court costs can be paid without undue hardship”). Consequently, unless it is clear that the one-time payment of the court’s filing fee will render the plaintiff unable to provide for himself, the court cannot grant him in forma pauperis status. See Adkins,

. In her affidavit, Plaintiff said that she receives Social Security but also that she has approximately $3,400 in the bank. (Doc. 2 at 3). Plaintiff also lists a variety of bills totaling $750 per month and states that she pays $250 each month to support her son. (Doc. 2 at 2–3). Based on these representations, it does not appear that paying the one-time filing fee would cause Plaintiff to be deprived the necessities of life. See Adkins,

; see also Bush v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:05-CV-0667,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2007) (noting

that “[i]n forma pauperis status is usually reserved either for indigent prisoners or for persons. . . who would truly be required to forego food, shelter, clothing, or some other necessity were they to devote any of their scant resources to paying a judicial filing fee”). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED. If this recommendation is adopted, it is further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee within seven (7) days of adoption. Additionally, because the Undersigned recommends her Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied, Plaintiff is responsible for serving Defendants in this action. Procedure on Objections If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence, or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.

(b)(1). The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 8, 2024 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE