ROBERT C. JONES, III v. JASON HICKS, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT C. JONES, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1034-SLP ) JASON HICKS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) O R D E R Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell entered October 10, 2025. [Doc. No. 6]. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to address to deficiencies in his Amended Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (IFP). See R&R [Doc. No. 6] at 3. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the R&R and directed any objections be filed on or before October 24, 2025. [Doc. No. 6] at 3-4. Plaintiff was further advised that any failure to object would waive Plaintiff’s right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the R&R. Id. On October 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R. [Doc. No. 8]. Upon de novo review, Plaintiff’s objections still fail to address the deficiencies contained in his Amended Application. First, Plaintiff mentions in the Objection he is seeking relief as to “cruel and unusual punishment” conducted by the Defendants and asks that the Court “reopen” a prior legal proceeding without any further explanation. Id. at 2. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge and finds that Plaintiff’s action is likely frivolous. Second, Plaintiff failed to provide any additional financial information sufficient for

this Court to grant his Application. Plaintiff asserts that “their [sic] hasn’t been no [sic] bill documents . . . or eviction . . . on record other than verbal equity that can be explained.” Id. at 3. As noted in the R&R, Plaintiff was previously ordered to cure the deficiencies with his original Application to Proceed IFP by the Magistrate Judge. See [Doc. No. 4]. Plaintiff was provided notice in the original Order by the Magistrate Judge and in the R&R

that he needed to provide “information about how he pays his monthly bills and how he meets his daily needs such as food, utilities, housing, and transportation.” [Doc. No. 6] at 3, n. 3. In the Objection, Plaintiff lists what the Court construes as expenses, but Plaintiff still fails to demonstrate how he pays for such expenses. [Doc No. 8] at 3. [T]o succeed on a motion to proceed [in forma pauperis], the movant must show a financial inability to

pay the required filing fees.” Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The Court is unable to ascertain from Plaintiff’s submissions how he is unable to pay the $405.00 filing fee. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 6] of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Application and

Amended Application to Proceed in In Forma Pauperis [Doc. Nos. 2 and 5] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the $405.00 filing fee on or before December 1, 2025. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to timely pay the filing fee, this action shall be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6" day of November, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE