Joseph F. S. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00877
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Joseph F. S.,1 ) C/A No.: 1:26-877-RMG-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) REPORT AND Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of ) RECOMMENDATION Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) )

The sole issue in this Report and Recommendation is whether Joseph F. S. (“Plaintiff”) should be required to pay the filing fee, or whether his financial condition justifies waiver of the payment. Plaintiff has commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requesting review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for disability benefits. All pretrial proceedings in this matter were referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge deny Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

1 The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials. I. Procedural Background Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Form AO-240) [ECF No. 3], which this court construes as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On Form AO-240, Plaintiff states he receives a total of $5,499.51 in disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. at 1. He lists assets that include a home

with an estimated value of $395,000, $300 in jewelry, and an automobile valued at $22,500, although it is leased. at 2. He indicates his total monthly expenses of $4,595.64 represent $1,620.64 for housing, $725 for transportation, $450 for utilities, and $1,800 for food.

II. Discussion Grants or denials of applications to proceed in forma pauperis are left to the discretion of federal district courts. , 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1980). However, there is no clear precedent in the

Fourth Circuit concerning a magistrate judge’s authority to issue an order denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis.2 The Sixth Circuit has concluded that a magistrate judge cannot issue an order to deny an application

2 The Fourth Circuit has held that, absent consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, proper review of a magistrate judge’s denial of a plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is in the district court. , 187 F.3d 629 (Table), 1999 WL 503537, *1 (4th Cir. July 16, 1999). However, the court did not specify the standard of review. to proceed in forma pauperis. , 894 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1990). Specifically, the court ruled that a denial of an application to proceed in

forma pauperis by a magistrate judge is the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal, which cannot be granted by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). . at 187. The Tenth and Fifth Circuits have reached similar conclusions. , 408 F.3d

1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005); , 373 F.3d 622, 623–25 (5th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the undersigned submits this Report and Recommendation to preserve Plaintiff’s opportunity to obtain a review by the district judge on objections.

A litigant is not required to show he is completely destitute in order to qualify as an indigent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). , 335 U.S. 331, 337–44 (1948). However, the “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to

the many truly impoverished litigants who . . . would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” , 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). In , 452 F. Supp. 939 (S.D. Tex. 1976), the court enunciated three legal tests used

to determine whether a person should proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915: (1) Is the litigant barred from the federal courts by the reason of his “impecunity”?

(2) Is his access to the courts blocked by the imposition of an undue hardship?

(3) Is the litigant forced to contribute his last dollar, or render himself destitute, to prosecute his claim?

at 943; , C/A No. 4:10- 2253-JFA-TER, 2010 WL 4226151, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 17, 2010); , C/A No. 4:07-617-RBH, 2007 WL 1302659, at *3 (D.S.C. May 2, 2007). Upon review of the information before the court, and mindful of the tests set forth in , it does not appear that Plaintiff would be rendered destitute by paying the filing fee of $405 (including a $55 administrative fee), nor is there any indication that requiring payment of the filing fee would impose an undue hardship or effectively block Plaintiff’s access to the courts. , 452 F. Supp. at 942 (holding plaintiff was not indigent because he had the right to collect a judgment of $5486.76); , 547 F. Supp. 129 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (finding $450.00 in savings sufficient to allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee of $60.00 without foregoing basic human needs). Here, Plaintiff indicates that after paying his monthly expenses for food, housing, utilities, and transportation, he is left with $903.87. Thus, Plaintiff

has sufficient funds to pay the filing and administrative fees without rendering himself destitute. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 3] be denied. III. Conclusion and Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the district judge deny Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit [ECF No. 3]. If the district judge accepts this recommendation, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff be permitted 14 days from the date of the order denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis to submit the required filing fee. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Slalger March 3, 2026 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” , 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); , 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); , 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).