Martinez v. O'Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION ZANDOR MARTINEZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-24-CV-145-KC-ATB § MARTIN O’MALLEY, § COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Civil Case Assignments, the Motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Anne T. Berton for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 4, on May 8, 2024, recommending that the Motion be denied and that Plaintiff “be ordered to pay the filing fee in three (3) consecutive monthly installments, each in the amount of $135, with the first installment being due within ten (10) days after the referring court’s order” on the R&R. R&R 4–5 (emphasis added). Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).1 Over fourteen days have elapsed since all parties that have appeared were served with the R&R, and no objections have been filed. 1 Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”). When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See id. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 4, in its entirety, and ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 1, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall PAY the filing fee in three consecutive monthly installments, each in the amount of $135, with the first installment due no later than June 3, 2024; the second installment due no later than July 3, 2024; and the third installment due no later than August 5, 2024. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension to File Partial Payment, ECF No. 7, is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 23rd day of May, 2024. UNIFED STATES DISTRIG# JUDGE