Salyer v. Flexan et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
NADINE SALYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLEXAN, LLC; and INGERSOLL RAND
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING [8] REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
[2] MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
Case No. 2:25-cv-01063-DBB
District Judge David Barlow
On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff Nadine Salyer filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.1 On January 6, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg entered a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny the motion because Plaintiff had
not submitted required information to demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee.2 The
magistrate judge also advised Ms. Salyer of her right to object to the Report and
Recommendation within 14 days of its service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).3 Ms. Salyer did not file an objection, and she subsequently paid
the court filing fee.4 Because no objection was filed, the court reviews the Report and
Recommendation for clear error.5 Having done so, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s
analysis and conclusions are sound and that no clear error is present.
1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, filed Nov. 21, 2025.
2 Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 8, entered Jan. 6, 2026.
3 Id. at 2.
4 See ECF No. 9.
5 Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 2:22-cv-00052, 2023 WL 4044514, at *2 (D. Utah June 16, 2023); United
States v. 2121 E. 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) ([A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s
Case 2:25-cv-01063-DBB-DAO Document 15 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that that the [8] Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s [2] Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED.
Signed January 27, 2026.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Barlow
United States District Judge
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.”).
Case 2:25-cv-01063-DBB-DAO Document 15 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2