Branson v. Slentz et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RONALD RAY BRANSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-688-G
)
JARED SLENTZ et al., )
)
Defendant. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (Motion) (ECF No. 2) in conformance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pursuant to the
procedures of this Court the motion was reviewed by the undersigned. Having reviewed
the Motion, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has sufficient funds to prepay the filing
fee of $405.00.1 Specifically Plaintiff reports $2,117.00 total income, and only $725.00 in
monthly expenses. Based on the information provided, Plaintiff’s income exceeds his
expenses by at least $1,300.00 per month. Plaintiff’s Application therefore lists sufficient
monthly funds to pay the required full filing fee.
See ECF No. 2.
Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right – fundamental or
otherwise.”
White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). “[T]o succeed on
a motion to proceed IFP, the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required
1 The filing fee is $350.00.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, an administrative fee of $55.00
must be paid.
See Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees, Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:25-cv-00688-G Document 4 Filed 06/26/25 Page 1 of 3

filing fees.”
Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). The
court evaluates “an application to proceed [IFP] . . . in light of the applicant’s present
financial status” and may consider the degree to which “monthly income exceeds his
monthly obligations”.
See Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008) (
denying IFP status, in part, because plaintiff’s “monthly income exceeded his monthly
obligations by several hundred dollars”);
Brewer, 24 F. App x at 979 (denying IFP status
because plaintiff’s “monthly income exceeds his monthly expenses by a few hundred
dollars”).
Because Plaintiff does not qualify for authorization to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion, (ECF No. 2), be DENIED and
that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the full $405.00 filing fee for this action to proceed. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).2
It is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling unless
Plaintiff pays the $405.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the Court within twenty (20)
days of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff is advised that Plaintiff may file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by July 14, 2025. Plaintiff is further
advised that failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation waives the right
2
See Lister v. Department of the Treasury, 408 F.3d at 1312 (magistrate judge should
issue a report and recommendation when denying motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.).
Case 5:25-cv-00688-G Document 4 Filed 06/26/25 Page 2 of 3

to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri,
595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
This report and recommendation disposes of all matters referred to the
undersigned magistrate judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED on June 26, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-00688-G Document 4 Filed 06/26/25 Page 3 of 3