United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
B. JONES, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff s pro se
application to proceed in forma pauperis under
28U.S.C.§1915, which permits an indigent litigant to
commence suit in federal court without paying administration
costs associated with such proceedings. [DE-1]. Upon
consideration of Plaintiffs application, it is recommended
the motion be denied.
litigant may commence an action in federal court in forma
pauperis ("IFP") by filing an affidavit in
good faith containing a statement of assets and demonstrating
she cannot afford to pay the required fees of the lawsuit.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The IFP statute is
intended to ensure that indigent persons have equal access to
the judicial system by allowing them "to proceed without
having to advance the fees and costs associated with
litigation." Flint v. Haynes, 651 F.2d 970, 972
(4th Cir. 1981). However, "proceeding [IFP] in a civil
case is a privilege or favor granted by the government."
White v. Barnhart, Nos. 1:02-CV-556, l;02-CV-557,
2002 WL 1760980, at *1 (M.D. N.C. July 30, 2002) (citations
omitted). In ruling on an IFP application, the court must
exercise discretion in determining whether to grant or deny
the application. Id. In Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the Supreme
Court first set forth the standard for the determination
of in forma pauperis: "[w]e think an affidavit
is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his
poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be
able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities
of life." Id. at 339 (internal quotation marks
omitted). In exercising its discretion, the court is to be
mindful that the ability to pay does not require that a
plaintiff prove that he is "absolutely destitute."
on the information provided by Plaintiff regarding his
current financial status, he has failed to demonstrate
sufficient evidence indicating that payment of the required
court costs would deprive him or his family of the
"necessities of life." Adkins, 355 U.S. at
339. Plaintiff incorrectly completed the short, rather than
the long, form application to proceed in forma
pauperis. [DE-1 ] at 1. Nonetheless, the court can
discern that Plaintiff is currently employed and his gross
pay or wages are $4, 800.00 and his take-home pay or wages
are $1, 600.00 per "monthly/bi-weekly."
Id. Additionally, Plaintiff states he currently has
$26, 000.00 in cash, or in a checking or savings account.
Id. at 2. The "privilege to proceed without
posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many
truly impoverished litigants who, within the District
Court's sound discretion, would remain without [a] legal
remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them."
Brewster v. N. A. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d649, 65l
(7th Cir. 1972). Accordingly, it is recommended that
Plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis
be denied and that Plaintiff be required to tender to the
clerk the filing and administrative fees of $400.00.
DIRECTED that a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation be
served on Plaintiff. You shall have until June 15,
2018 to file written objections to the Memorandum
and Recommendation. The presiding district judge must conduct
his or her own review (that is, make a de novo determination)
of those portions of the Memorandum and Recommendation to
which objection is properly made and may accept, reject, or
modify the determinations in the Memorandum and
Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See,
e.g., 2$ U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3);
Local Civ. R. 1.1 (permitting modification of deadlines
specified in local rules), 72.4(b), E.D. N.C.
do not file written objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation by the foregoing deadline, you will be giving
up the right to review of the Memorandum and Recommendation
by the presiding district judge as described above, and the
presiding district judge may enter an order or judgment based
on the Memorandum and Recommendation without such review. In
addition, your failure to file written objections by the
foregoing deadline will bar you from appealing to the Court
of Appeals from an order or judgment of the presiding
district judge based on the Memorandum and Recommendation.
See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th
 A magistrate judge, proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b), lacks authority to deny an
application to proceed in forma pauperis and may
only issue a recommendation to the district court. Hunter
v. Roventini,617 Fed.Appx. 225, 226 (4th Cir. 2015)
(per curiam) (citing Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d
187, 187 (6 th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) ("[A] denial of
such a motion is the functional equivalent of an ...