IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

CRAIG HOWARD RASK, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION No. 4:22-CV-380-P(BJ) 

 §

BRENDA MITCHELL, §

 §

Defendant. §

 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER 

In this case, Plaintiff has filed a civil case with a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1-2. The case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Miscellaneous Order No. 6.1 The

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

A. NATURE OF THE CASE

 This case is a new civil action.

B. PARTIES

Craig Howard Rask is the plaintiff. Compl. 1, ECF No. 1. He lists as defendant Brenda

Mitchell. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Plaintiff filed a completed long-form motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 et. seq. In forma Pauperis Mot., ECF No. 2. That application/motion includes the income and

asset information for the plaintiff. A review of the financial information submitted in the

1Order for the Adoption of Rules for the Exercise of Powers and Performances of duties by United

States Magistrate Judges, signed May 5, 2005. 

Case 4:22-cv-00380-P Document 6 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 21
application/motion reflects that Craig Rask receives $4,000 a month in self employment and $1,400

a month in Social Security disability payments. Courts consider such payments in making the informa-pauperis determination.2

In forma Pauperis Mot. 1-3, ECF No. 2. He lists one dependent. Id.

at 3. The applicable poverty guideline for a family of two is $18,310.3 At a total of $5,400 per month,

Plaintiff receives over $64,800 in annual income, significantly higher than the poverty level. The

information in this application thus shows that Plaintiff has sufficient resources available to pay the

applicable fees. Thus, after review and consideration of the application/motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, the undersigned finds the motion to proceed IFP should be denied, and will make such a

recommendation. 

 RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF

No. 2] be DENIED by the district judge. 

It isfurtherRECOMMENDED that the district judge inform Plaintiff that the complaint will

be subject to dismissal without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), unless

Plaintiff pays to the clerk of Court the filing and administrative fees of $402.004 within seven (7)

days after the district judge’s order.

 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED

 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

2

See, e.g., Lewis v. Center Market, et al., 378 Fed. Appx. 780, 784-85 (110th Cir. May 17, 2010)

(affirming district court’s denial of IFP status to appellant whose only income sources were social security

and unemployment benefits); Salter v. Johnson, No.3:12CV738-HTW, 2013 WL 550654, *1 (S.D. Miss. Jan.

18, 2013) (income includes social security payments), rep. and rec. adopted, 2013 WL 55065 (Feb. 12,

2013); Mitchell v. Champs Sports, 42 F.Supp. 2d 642, 648 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15,1998).

3

See https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. 

4

In addition to the filing fee of $350, the District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule requires

payment of an administrative fee for filing a civil action in district court of $52. See 28 U.S.C.§ 1914(a) and

District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, note 14. 

2

Case 4:22-cv-00380-P Document 6 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 22
 AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file

specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has

been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de

novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual

finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice,

from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the

United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th

Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file

objections from ten to fourteen days).

ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until May 19, 2022 to serve

and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions

and recommendation. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and is hereby,

RETURNED to the docket of the United States District Judge.

SIGNED May 5, 2022. ___________________________________ 

JEFFREY L. CURETON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 4:22-cv-00380-P Document 6 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 23