United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Douglas N. Brown, Plaintiff,
Nancy A. Berryhill, Defendant.
Elizabeth A. Stafford United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION , OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS , AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF OR HIS COUNSEL TO PAY FILING FEE BY JUNE 22,
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN United States District Judge
17, 2017, Douglas N. Brown (“Plaintiff”)
initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g), challenging the final decision of Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (the
“Act”). Dkt. No. 1.
matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
on May 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 4. On May 24, 2017, Magistrate
Judge Stafford recommended denying Plaintiff's
application because it stated, in its entirety,
“claimant deceased, ” without any supporting
allegations of right to execute or administer the estate or
demonstration of financial need. Dkt. No. 2, p. 1 (Pg. ID 4).
Plaintiff objected on June 7, 2017. Dkt. No. 6.
reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's objections are
overruled and the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is
accepted and adopted.
Standard of Review
Report and Recommendation
party files timely objections to a report and recommendation,
the Court must “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). “This de novo review requires the
court to re-examine all of the relevant evidence previously
reviewed by the magistrate judge in order to determine
whether the recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or
modified in whole or in part.” Cole v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., 105 F.Supp.3d 738, 741 (E.D. Mich. 2015)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
broad objections do not satisfy the objections requirement.
Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir.
2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007). “[W]hile the Magistrate Judge Act,
28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq., permits de
novo review by the district court if timely objections
are filed, absent compelling reasons, it does not allow
parties to raise at the district court stage new arguments or
issues that were not presented to the magistrate.”
Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th
Cir. 2000); see United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d
933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater,
75 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (10th Cir. 1996) (“issues raised
for the first time in objections to magistrate judge's
report and recommendation are deemed waived”)).
In Forma Pauperis Application
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), “any court of the
United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or
defense of any suit, action or proceeding . . .without
prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who
submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
. . . [and] that the person is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
If an application to proceed in forma pauperis is
filed along with an affidavit that states what the
plaintiff's assets are and that the plaintiff is unable
to pay the filing fee, the court should permit the complaint
to be filed. See Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 915 F.2d
260, 261 (6th Cir. 1990). Once the complaint has been filed,
the Court examines it to consider whether it is frivolous or
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Judge Stafford recommended denying Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis on May 24,
2017, Dkt. No. 5, based on two grounds. First, Magistrate
Judge Stafford found that Donald Brown had not alleged that
he had the authority to prosecute this case on behalf of
Douglas Brown. Id. at 1-2. Second, she found that
the application, which states in its entirety “claimant
deceased, ” leaving the rest of the application blank,
did not provide adequate information about the financial
resources of the estate to entitle a waiver of filing fees.
Id. at 2.
filed two objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation. Dkt. No. 6. First, he states that Donald
Brown is the proper substitute party for Douglas Brown, who
is allegedly deceased. Id. at 2. To this effect, he
attaches a “NOTICE REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY UPON
DEATH OF CLAIMANT” that was not presented to the
Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 6-1. This form lists Donald Brown
as Douglas Brown's parent, but not the executor or
administrator of his estate. Id. See also Blanton ex rel.
Blanton v. Astrue, No. 1:10-CV-2463, 2011 WL 2637224, at
*3 (N.D. Ohio June 20, 2011), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 1:10 CV 2463, 2011 WL 2637248 (N.D. Ohio
July 6, 2011) ...