Gunn v. Salt Lake City Corporation.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
MICHAEL GUNN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ADOPTING [6] REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:25-cv-00836-DBB-DAO
District Judge David Barlow
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Before the court is United States Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg’s Report and
Recommendation.1 It recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (IFP).2
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings an action alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Vocational Rehabilitation Act.3 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Salt Lake City Corporation
discriminated against him while he was employed as a watershed ranger.4
1 R. & R. (“R&R”), ECF No. 6, filed December 3, 2025.
2 Id. at 3.
3 Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1, filed September 23, 2025.
4 Id. ¶ 1, 15.
Case 2:25-cv-00836-DBB-DAO Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
STANDARD
The court conducts a de novo review of any part of a report and recommendation for
which a plaintiff offers a timely and proper objection.5 This court “reviews unobjected-to
portions of a report and recommendation for clear error.”6 To overturn a decision as clearly
erroneous, the court must be left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.”7
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP.8 The
Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Gunn represented to the court that his lawyer is from a legal aid
organization but the counsel of record is not from a legal aid organization.9 The Magistrate Judge
also noted that Mr. Gunn reported his monthly income as $17,625.10 The Magistrate Judge
ordered additional briefing from Mr. Gunn to “(1) explain his allegation that he is represented by
a legal aid attorney, including identifying the legal aid attorney and case(s) in which he is
represented, and (2) explain his inability to pay the filing fee if his income is $17,625 per
month—or clarify if this figure is in error.”11 Mr. Gunn did not respond to the order. The
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
6 Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 2:22-cv-00052, 2023 WL 4044514, at *2 (D. Utah 2023) (citing Johnson v.
Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) adv. comm. note to 1983 amend.
(“[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”).
7 United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d
1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988).
8 R&R at 3.
9 Id. at 2.
10 Id.
11 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00836-DBB-DAO Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
Magistrate Judge concluded that Mr. Gunn had not demonstrated an inability to pay the filing
fee.12
No objections were filed, and therefore, the Report and Recommendation is reviewed for
clear error. The magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusion are not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the court:
1. 	ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.13
2. 	DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.14
3. 	ORDERS that Mr. Gunn has thirty days to pay the filing fee.15 If Mr. Gunn fails to
pay the filing fee, his case will be dismissed without prejudice.
Signed January 6, 2026.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge
12 Id.
13 ECF No. 6.
14 Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, filed September 23, 2025.
15 See DUCivR 3-2(a)(1)(D).
Case 2:25-cv-00836-DBB-DAO Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3