Loveless v. Oklahoma State of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRIS ELROY LOVELESS, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-01234-JD
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) issued by United
States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green on March 19, 2025. [Doc. No. 15]. The
R. & R. recommends that the Court deny Petitioner Chris Elroy Loveless’s Application
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion”) [Doc. No. 10]. R. & R. at 2. Judge
Green reviewed Loveless’s Motion, and she concluded that Loveless has sufficient
financial resources to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this habeas corpus action because his
institutional account has a recent balance of $53.39. Id. As a result, Judge Green
recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice if Loveless does not pay
the $5.00 filing fee within 21 days of any order adopting the R. & R. Id.
Loveless filed a timely objection to the R. & R. [Doc. No. 16]. Loveless does not
dispute that his Motion reflects an institutional account balance of $53.39, but he asserts
that he needs this money for reasonable living expenses including hygiene products,
stamps, writing materials, and papers. Id. at 2. Thus, Loveless argues, requiring him to
pay the $5.00 filing fee “would create and constitute a serious hardship” for him. Id.
Case 5:24-cv-01234-JD Document 17 Filed 05/14/25 Page 1 of 3

2
When a magistrate judge has entered a recommended disposition of a matter, the
Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[A] party’s objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue
for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E.
30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Upon de novo review of the record and Judge Green’s recommendation, the Court
accepts and adopts the R. & R. Judge Green has “dealt with the issues fully and
accurately,” and the Court “could add little of value to that analysis.” In re Griego, 64
F.3d 580, 584 (10th Cir. 1995). Nothing in Loveless’s objection leads the Court to find
any error in Judge Green’s analysis. The Court agrees with Judge Green’s conclusion
that, given the amount in Loveless’s institutional account, Loveless has the financial
resources to pay the $5.00 filing fee without suffering undue financial hardship.
Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15]
and DENIES Loveless’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No.
10]. Loveless is ORDERED to pay the full $5.00 filing fee to the Clerk of the Court
within twenty-one days of this Order, or by June 4, 2025. Failure to do so will result in
dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Case 5:24-cv-01234-JD Document 17 Filed 05/14/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-01234-JD Document 17 Filed 05/14/25 Page 3 of 3