United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF No. 2]
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
January 2, 2018, Plaintiff Otis Williams, III, filed his
complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. [ECF No. 1, 2]. His application to proceed in
forma pauperis should be DENIED at this
time, with instructions to properly complete the IFP
U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that “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.” To determine whether to grant an IFP
application, the court considers the applicant's
employment status, annual salary, assets (including real
estate and automobiles), and financial resources available
from the claimant's spouse (if any). Carroll v.
Onemain Fin. Inc., No. 14-CV-14514, 2015 WL 404105, at
*2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2015). “An affidavit to proceed
IFP is sufficient if it states that one cannot, because of
poverty, afford to pay for costs of litigation and still
provide the litigant and his or her family the necessities of
life.” Id. Courts have denied IFP applications
where applicants have had assets and/or income that exceed
the cost of filing the complaint. Beres v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:14CV01448, 2014 WL 3924634, at
*2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2014) (listing cases).
Williams indicated that he has received income in the past 12
months from “business, profession, or other
self-employment.” [ECF No. 2, PageID 35]. After
affirmatively declaring this source of income, the IFP
application asked Williams to “describe … each
source of money and state the amount that you received and
what you expect to receive in the future.” Id.
Williams, however, failed to provide this required
description. Without this information, the Court is unable to
determine whether Williams qualifies for IFP status.
Court thus RECOMMENDS that Williams's
application be DENIED at this time, and that
Williams be instructed to submit a completed IFP application
for the Court's consideration.
TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
party to this action may object to and seek review of this
Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days
of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file
specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right
of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);
Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but
fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all
objections that party might have to this Report and
Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS,
931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit
Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373
(6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection must be served upon
this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).
objection must be labeled as
“Objection #1, ” “Objection #2, ”
etc., and must specify precisely the
provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it
pertains. Not later than fourteen days after service of
objections, the non-objecting party must file a
response to the objections, specifically addressing
each issue raised in the objections in the same order and
labeled as “Response to Objection #1, ”
“Response to Objection #2, ” etc. The response
must be concise and proportionate in length and
complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise
no page limitation. If the Court determines that any
objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting
 The case has been referred to this
Court to resolve all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). [ECF No. 5]. A report and recommendation
is appropriate here, as magistrate judges do not have
authority to deny motions to proceed IFP. Woods v.
Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187, 187-88 (6th Cir. 1990).
 It appears that Williams originally
checked that he had not received income from “business,
profession or other self-employment” in the past 12
months; however, that mark appears scratched off and an
unblemished checkmark appears in ...