Harmon v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ADRIENNE HARMON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action 2:26-cv-17
District Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Adrienne Harmon brings this case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
for “willful and negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” (Doc. 1-1 at 1). This matter
is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). For the
following reasons, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS the Motion be DENIED.
The Supreme Court, in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., set forth the legal
standard applicable to a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 335 U.S. 331 (1948). An affidavit
of poverty is sufficient if it reflects that the plaintiff cannot pay the court’s filing fee without
depriving himself the “necessities of life.” Id. at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although
the plaintiff need not be totally destitute to proceed in forma pauperis, paying the filing fee must
be more than a mere hardship. See Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.
App’x 239, 240 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that “the question is whether the court costs can be paid
without undue hardship”). 	Consequently, unless the one-time payment of the court’s filing fee
clearly will render the plaintiff unable to provide for herself, the Court cannot grant her in forma
pauperis status. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339.
Case: 2:26-cv-00017-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Based on her affidavit, the Undersigned determines that Plaintiff has sufficient funds to
pay the filing fee. Plaintiff claims to make about $4,000 per month in self-employment. (Doc. 1
at 1). 	Plaintiff also details monthly expenses, which equal about $2,097 per month. 	(Id. at 3).
Based on these representations, it does not appear that paying the one-time filing fee would cause
Plaintiff to be deprived of the necessities of life. See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339; see also Bush v.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:05-CV-0667, 2007 WL 4365381, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10,
2007) (noting that “[i]n forma pauperis status is usually reserved either for indigent prisoners or
for persons . . . who would truly be required to forego food, shelter, clothing, or some other
necessity were they to devote any of their scant resources to paying a judicial filing fee”).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 1) be DENIED. If this recommendation is adopted, it is further RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days of adoption or face dismissal. If
this recommendation is adopted, and Plaintiff pays the filing fee, she will be responsible for
service.
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence, or may
recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case: 2:26-cv-00017-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
The 	parties 	are 	specifically 	advised 	that 	failure 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	February 26, 2026 	/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:26-cv-00017-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 02/26/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>