Stoumile v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DONEIA STOUMILE,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action 2:25-cv-1277
District Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC.,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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.
Plaintiff Doneia Stoumile brings this case against Life Time Fitness for violations of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Doc. 1-1). Based on her affidavit, it is difficult to assess whether
Plaintiff’s monthly income from all sources exceeded her monthly expenses. 	(Doc. 1). 	For
example, Plaintiff lists that she is employed by “Village Green” and “Amazon” and claims to make
a combined $3,100 in gross wages and $2,700 in take-home pay. 	(Id. at 1). 	When asked how
often she receives this money, Plaintiff writes, “I receive weekly [a]nd biweekly pay,” but she does
not specify which of the two jobs pays her weekly, which pays her biweekly, or how much each
job pays her. (Id.). As for monthly expenses, Plaintiff claims to spend $350 per week on an “Uber
rental car,” presumably for use in her third job as an Uber driver. (Id. at 1–2). She also lists $3,000
in credit card debt to Discover, and she claims to only have $300.00 in cash or in a checking or
savings account. 	(Id. at 2). 	The Undersigned could not tell if these expenses outweighed her
income. (Doc. 2). So, Plaintiff was ordered to submit a revised Motion filling in the gaps. (Id.).
Case: 2:25-cv-01277-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
When Plaintiff did not do so, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to refile her Motion, warning her
that a failure to do so could result in a recommendation that the Motion be denied. (Doc. 3). To
date, Plaintiff has still not refiled her Motion. Thus, the Undersigned will evaluate her Motion as
submitted.
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.
As noted, the Undersigned cannot determine if Plaintiff’s gross wages and take-home pay
are outweighed by her Uber expenses and credit card debt. 	(Doc. 1 at 1–2). 	Based on these
representations—and Plaintiff’s failure to clarify them—it does not appear that paying the one-
time filing fee would cause Plaintiff to be deprived 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 her Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
Case: 2:25-cv-01277-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
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.
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).
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: January 15, 2026 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-01277-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 4 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>