Duve v. Forrest et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE,
Plaintiff.
V.
WILLIAM CHARLES FOREST, et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
3:26-cv-158
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 21, 2026, all pretrial matters in this case were referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 16.
Judge Edison filed a memorandum opinion, order, and recommendation on May
21, 2026, recommending that the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, Dkt. 2, be denied. Dkt. 17.
On May 24, 2026, the plaintiff filed her objections to the memorandum and
recommendation. Dkt. 25. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court
is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate
judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the court may
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 32 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
The court has carefully considered the objections; the memorandum and
recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison’s
memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff objects that Judge Edison applied the in forma pauperis
standard “too narrowly.” Dkt. 25 at 2. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that Judge
Edison erred when he found that the plaintiff would still be able to afford the
necessities of life if made to the pay the filing fee because she “reports having
$1,000 of emergency cash on hand, $1,071 in a checking account, $1,500 in a
savings account, and an employee stock ownership plan with approximately
$160,000 remaining” and “also reports assets totaling approximately $293,000.”
Dkt. 17 at 1 (quotation omitted). The court concurs with Judge Edison’s analysis.
See, e.g., Heath v. I.R.S., No. 3-02-CV-1518-H, 2002 WL 31086069, at *2 (N.D.
Tex. Sept. 16, 2002) (adopting magistrate judge’s recommendation that motion to
proceed in forma pauperis be denied because the plaintiff’s $81,000 “savings alone
constitute sufficient funds to pay the $150.00 filing fee”).
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) 	Judge 	Edison’s 	memorandum 	and 	recommendation, 	Dkt. 	17, 	is
approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court; and
(2) 	The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, is denied.
SIGNED on Galveston Island this 3rd day of June 2026.
______________________________
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 32 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2