LaFaber v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Tonya M. LaFaber, Case No. 5:23cv1331

Plaintiff, JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER -vs- Magistrate Judge Thomas Parker

Commissioner of Social Security, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas Parker (Doc. No. 5), recommending that Plaintiff Tonya LaFaber’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied. No objections have been filed. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s’ Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, or this matter will be dismissed. I. Background On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff Tonya M. LaFaber filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) challenging the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying her application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, and 1381 et seq. (“Act”). On that same date, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas Parker. On July 17, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied. (Doc. No. 5.) Therein, Magistrate Judge Parker noted that LaFaber reported in her IFP application that her spouse earned approximately $6,000 per month in income and their monthly expenses totaled $4,140. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Parker concluded that LaFaber’s spouse had sufficient resources to pay the filing fee and, therefore, recommended that this Court find that LaFaber was not eligible to proceed IFP. (Id.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within 14 days of service, i.e., by no later than July

31, 2023. No objections were filed. II. Standard of Review The applicable standard of review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made, the district court reviews the case de novo. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) states in pertinent part: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instruction.

Although the standard of review when no objections are made is not expressly addressed in Rule 72, the Advisory Committee Notes to that Rule provide that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes. Moreover, in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the United States Supreme Court explained that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” III. Analysis and Conclusion 2 Here, as stated above, no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Parker that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied. This Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and all other relevant documents in the record, and finds no clear error. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Parker (Doc. No. 5) is, therefore, ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the $402 filing fee within fourteen (14) days

of the date of this Order, or this matter will be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Pamela A. Barker_ Date: August 1, 2023 PAMELA A. BARKER U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE