IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

SHAUNTRELLA TRENESSE LONDON, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00247-O-BP 

 § 

COMMISSSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY, § 

 §

Defendant. §

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Shauntrella Trenesse London filed a civil case along with a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2. The undersigned was preliminarily assigned pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order No. 3. See ECF No. 5. 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

Shauntrella Trenesse London is the plaintiff. She has named as defendant the 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

 C. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Plaintiff accompanied her complaint with a completed long-form motion/application to 

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et. seq. ECF No. 2. The fully completed 

motion/application includes the income and asset information for Plaintiff. Id. In making the inCase 4:22-cv-00247-O Document 8 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 25
2

forma-pauperis determination, the Court must consider the total monetary resources available to 

Plaintiff and ask whether payment of fees would result in Plaintiff “suffering undue financial 

hardship.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988). By Order dated April 5, 2022, the 

undersigned determined Plaintiff has sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee in this 

matter without suffering undue financial hardship and directed her to do so on or before April 19, 

2022. ECF No. 6 at 2. That Order warned Plaintiff that “denial of leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis will be recommended” if she failed to comply. Id. 

To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s prior order by paying the applicable 

filing fee. Because the information in Plaintiff’s motion/application shows she has sufficient 

resources to pay the applicable filing and administrative fees and she did not do so by the deadline 

in the Court’s April 5 Order, the undersigned finds that the motion to proceed IFP should be denied. 

 RECOMMENDATION

It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor

DENY Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

It is further RECOMMENDED that Judge O’Connor inform Plaintiff that her 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 applicable filing and administrative fees of $402.00

within seven (7) days after his order.

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must 

Case 4:22-cv-00247-O Document 8 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 26
3

identify the particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates 

by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and 

legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except 

upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th 

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

the undersigned for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and is hereby, RETURNED

to the docket of the United States District Judge.

SIGNED on April 25, 2022.

____________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00247-O Document 8 Filed 04/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 27