Morgan v. Clark Stores, LLC

E.D. North Carolina

Morgan v. Clark Stores, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-00695

StatusUnknown

This text of Morgan v. Clark Stores, LLC (Morgan v. Clark Stores, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. Clark Stores, LLC, (E.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:23-CV-00695-M-BM KLYE MORGAN, Plaintiff, V. ORDER CLARK STORES, INC., Defendant.

This matter comes before the court for review of the Memorandum and Recommendation (the “Recommendation’”) filed on December 14, 2023, by Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) [DE 5]. In the Recommendation, Judge Meyers recommends that the court deny Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and order him to pay the requisite filing fee on or before January 12, 2024. DE 5 at 2. The Recommendation, which includes instructions and a deadline for objections, was served on Plaintiff on December 14, 2023. DE 5 at 2-3. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Recommendation. The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), but need only “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” id Notwithstanding that Plaintiff raised no objections to the Recommendation, the court has reviewed the in forma pauperis application and concurs with the Recommendation, in that Plaintiff has sufficient income and assets such that he is not entitled to have the public bear the costs of his litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); United States v. Valdes, 300 F. Supp. 2d 82, 85 (D.D.C. 2004) (observing that court may not turn “blind

eye to [applicant’s] actual financial circumstances,” which would “render [] court an unfit steward of the public purse”). The court therefore adopts the Recommendation in full. The Recommendation [DE 5] is hereby ADOPTED, the application to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is DENIED, and Plaintiff shall pay the requisite filing fee on or before January 12, 2024.

SO ORDERED this SS __ day of January, 2024.

? ee RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:23-CV-00695-M-BM KLYE MORGAN, Plaintiff, V. ORDER CLARK STORES, INC., Defendant.

This matter comes before the court for review of the Memorandum and Recommendation (the “Recommendation’”) filed on December 14, 2023, by Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) [DE 5]. In the Recommendation, Judge Meyers recommends that the court deny Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and order him to pay the requisite filing fee on or before January 12, 2024. DE 5 at 2. The Recommendation, which includes instructions and a deadline for objections, was served on Plaintiff on December 14, 2023. DE 5 at 2-3. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Recommendation. The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), but need only “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” id Notwithstanding that Plaintiff raised no objections to the Recommendation, the court has reviewed the in forma pauperis application and concurs with the Recommendation, in that Plaintiff has sufficient income and assets such that he is not entitled to have the public bear the costs of his litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); United States v. Valdes, 300 F. Supp. 2d 82, 85 (D.D.C. 2004) (observing that court may not turn “blind

eye to [applicant’s] actual financial circumstances,” which would “render [] court an unfit steward of the public purse”). The court therefore adopts the Recommendation in full. The Recommendation [DE 5] is hereby ADOPTED, the application to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is DENIED, and Plaintiff shall pay the requisite filing fee on or before January 12, 2024.

SO ORDERED this SS __ day of January, 2024.

? ee RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Morgan v. Clark Stores, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-clark-stores-llc-nced-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack