IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

RANDY ALAN HUSTON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-745-P(BJ) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

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 of28 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 

Randy Alan Huston is the plaintiff. Comp!. 1, ECF No. 1. He lists as defendant the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Id. 

C. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

1

0rder for the Adoption of Rules for the Exercise of Powers and Performances of duties by United 

States Magistrate Judges, signed May 5, 2005. 

1 

Case 4:22-cv-00745-P Document 8 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 30
Plaintiff filed a completed long-form motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 et. seq. ECF No. 2. That application/motion includes the income and asset information for 

the plaintiff. 

Whether to permit or deny an applicant to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is within the 

sound discretion of the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 

1988). Courts should make the determination of financial ability after considering whether 

payment of the filing fee will result in the plaintiff "suffering undue financial hardship." Prows, 

842 F.2d at 140. "This entails a review of other demands on individual plaintiffs' financial 

resources, including whether the expenses are discretionary or mandatory." Id. 

In his financial affidavit, Plaintiff declares that he earns $1,809 in retirement benefits. ECF 

No. 2 at 2. Courts consider social security payments in making the in-forma-pauperis 

determination. 1 Plaintiff has listed no dependents. Id. At a monthly income of$1,809, Plaintiffs 

annual income of $21,708 is far above the poverty level. Thus, based on the information in the 

application, Plaintiff has sufficient resources to pay the filing and administrative fees, and the 

undersigned will recommend denial of the in forma pauperis motion. 

RECOMMENDATION 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs motion to proceed in fornia pauperis 

[ECF No. 2] be DENIED by the district judge. 

1

See, e.g.,Lewis v. Center Market, et al., 378 F. App'x. 780, 784-85 (10th Cir. May 17, 2010) 

(affirming district court's denial ofIFP 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), rec. adopted, 2013 WL 

55065 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 12, 2013). 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00745-P Document 8 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 31
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 Comi the filing and administrative fees of $402.002 within 

seven (7) days after the district judge's order. 

NOTICE OF IUGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

A copy of this repo1i and recommendation shall be served on all pmiies in the manner 

provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each pmiy 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 fomieen (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)(l). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a 

proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a pmiy, 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). 

2

111 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. 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00745-P Document 8 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 32
ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until September 29, 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 September lb, 2022. 

- u 

TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00745-P Document 8 Filed 09/15/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 33