Poffenbarger v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JEFFREY POFFENBARGER,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00022
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff filed this federal question case against PennyMac Loan Services, LLC.
(D.E. 1). Pending is his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.E. 14).
Plaintiff earns $2,500 per month in income, currently has $2,000 in
cash/checking/savings account(s), has $150,000 in equity in his residence, and has
approximately $635 left over each month after his monthly expenses. Id. The filing fee
is $405.00. Plaintiff can afford to pay the $405.00 filing fee. It is respectfully
recommended that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (D.E. 14)
be denied, and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $405.00 filing fee within thirty (30)
days.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 15 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
Respectfully submitted on February 27, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-00022 Document 15 Filed 02/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2