IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ZVIKRIPLE, § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-788-P (BJ) 

PAUL ELLARD, 

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. ECFNos. 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 

Zvi Kriple is the plaintiff. Comp!. 1, ECF No. I. He lists as defendant Paul Ellard. Id. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

Plaintiff initially filed a short from motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. In 

response to a deficiency order, he filed a long-form motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 et. seq. ECF No. 7. That application/motion includes the income and asset 

information for the plaintiff. A review of the financial information submitted in the long-form 

'Order 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-00788-P Document 8 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 37
motion reflects that plaintiff Zvi Kriple anticipates receiving $12,000 a month in his current 

employment Mot. I, ECF No. 7. He lists no dependents. Id. at 3. The applicable poverty guideline 

for a family of one is $13,590.2 At an income of$12,000 per month, Plaintiff receives over $140,000 

in annual household income, significantly higher than the poverty level. Furthermore, although 

Plaintiff lists a total monthly expense figure of "$20,000," that total is wholly unsupported by the 

amounts he listed in the sub-categories of expenses. Mot 4-5, ECF No. 7 The information in this 

application thus shows that Plaintiff has sufficient resources available to pay the applicable fees. 

After review and consideration of the applications/motions to proceed in forma pauperis, the 

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

recommendation. 

RECOMMENDATION 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 

Nos. 2 and 7] be DENIED by the district judge. 

It is further RECOMMENDED 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 $402.003 within seven (7) 

days after the district judge's order. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

2

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

3

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 comt of $52. See 28 U.S.C.§ l 9 l 4(a) and 

District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, note 14. 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00788-P Document 8 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 38
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner 

provided by law. Under28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each party to this action has the rightto 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 bane), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) (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 October 18, 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 Dis.;;,t-· ...,_ 

SIGNED October f_, 2022. 

. URETON 

ST A TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00788-P Document 8 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 39