IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

ARTHUR LUCIUS MOORE JR., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § EP-25-CV-487-KC-RFC § COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL § SECURITY, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castañeda’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 2. On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”), ECF No. 1. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Court’s May 1, 2012, Standing Order, this case and all motions were referred to Judge Castañeda. Judge Castañeda filed the R&R on December 2, 2025, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. Parties have fourteen days from a service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See

(b)(1)(C).1 Over fourteen days have elapsed since the R&R, and no objections have been filed. When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United

1 Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See

(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”). States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 2, in its entirety, and DENIES Plaintiff's IFP Motion, ECF No. 1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL PAY the filing fee by no later than January 5, 2026. Failure to pay the filing fee by this deadline may result in dismissal of this case. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 17th day of December, 2025.

IZED STATES DISTRIG# JUDGE