IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TIJUANA LAVERN CANDERS, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:17-cv-867 

 v. Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Tijuana L. Canders’ 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons that follow, it is 

RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application be DENIED. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal 

Case is DENIED. (ECF No. 2.)

 To ensure access to courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) permits an indigent plaintiff to avoid 

payment of filing fees if the applicant demonstrates by affidavit the inability to pay such fees. 

The United States Supreme Court, in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 

(1948), set forth the legal standards governing applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The 

Adkins Court advised that “one must not be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of the 

statute” and that the statute does not require an individual to “contribute . . . the last dollar they 

have or can get.” Id. at 339. The Court explained that “[t]he public would not be profited if 

relieved of paying costs of a particular litigation only to have imposed on it the expense of 

supporting the person thereby made an object of public support.” Id. Rather, what is required is 
2

a demonstration via affidavit that “because of his [or her] poverty,” the applicant cannot pay the 

fee and continue to provide for the necessities of life. Id. Courts evaluating applications to 

proceed in forma pauperis, generally consider an applicant’s employment, annual income and 

expenses, and any other property or assets the individual possesses. Giles v. Comm’r of Soc. 

Sec., No. 14-CV-11553, 2014 WL 2217136, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2014). 

 Here, the information set forth in Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application does not 

demonstrate her inability to pay. Plaintiff’s application indicates she receives approximately 

$3,000 per month in income. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) It does not appear, therefore, that the cost of 

filing the instant matter is beyond Plaintiff’s means. In view of Plaintiff’s income, the 

Undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that, because of her poverty, she is unable 

to pay for the costs of this litigation and still provide for herself. 

 Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Seal Case. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff did not file a 

memorandum in support of her Motion, nor does she put forth any argument in her Motion for 

Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis indicating why this matter should be sealed. 

 For the reasons explained above, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED and that she be ordered to pay the required $400 filing 

fee within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS if she intends to proceed. (ECF No. 1.) Further, Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Seal Case is DENIED. (ECF No. 2.) 

 PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that 

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in 
3

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review of by the District Judge 

and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l 

Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the 

magistrate judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [th defendant’s] ability to appeal the 

district court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, 

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to 

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .” (citation 

omitted)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: January 9, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE