United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 2]
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Adam Thomas Spano has filed a complaint and an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 1,
His application to proceed in forma pauperis should
be DENIED, and he should be required to pay
the filing fee in this matter.
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.” When reviewing an IFP application, courts
consider 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 deny IFP applications when applicants have assets 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)
Spano's IFP application failed to answer any of the
questions about “Other Income.” [ECF No. 2,
PageID.14]. And the answers he does provide suggest that his
assets easily exceed the $350 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a). Spano states that he has “approximately $1,
400.00” in cash or in a checking or savings account,
and that he owns a vehicle worth $12, 000 and a home worth
$150, 000. [Id. at PageID.15]. Spano's
“access to court is not blocked by his financial
condition, but rather he is properly in the position of
having to weigh the financial constraints posed by pursuing
his complaint against the merits of his claims.”
Carroll, 2015 WL 404105, at *3
Spano's IFP form is incomplete and because he has
sufficient assets to pay the filing fee, the Court thus
RECOMMENDS that Spano's application be
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 under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ...