From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarthy v. Bangor

United States District Court, D. Maine
Mar 3, 2000
Civil No. 99-0093-B (D. Me. Mar. 3, 2000)

Opinion

Civil No. 99-0093-B.

March 3, 2000


RECOMMENDED DECISION


Plaintiff has filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, together with a document entitled "A Court Request, please." Plaintiff is seeking a declaration from the Court that he is indigent, apparently thinking this declaration will prevent his having to comply with various requirements set by the City of Bangor Department of Health and Welfare as a condition to his receiving public assistance. The document is not a Complaint, and in forma pauperis status serves only to permit a plaintiff from proceeding with a court action without prepayment of the $150 filing fee. Inasmuch as it appears Plaintiff does not wish to proceed with a court action, nor is there any apparent basis upon which he could do so, there is no reason for the Court to grant his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Conclusion

Accordingly, I recommend the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED, and this matter be DISMISSED in its entirety.

NOTICE

A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within ten (10) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of the objection.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.


Summaries of

McCarthy v. Bangor

United States District Court, D. Maine
Mar 3, 2000
Civil No. 99-0093-B (D. Me. Mar. 3, 2000)
Case details for

McCarthy v. Bangor

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS B. McCARTHY, Plaintiff, v. BANGOR, GENERAL ASSISTANCE, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Maine

Date published: Mar 3, 2000

Citations

Civil No. 99-0093-B (D. Me. Mar. 3, 2000)

Citing Cases

Teche Lines, Inc., v. Bounds

" Samulski v. Menasha Paper Co., 147 Wis. 285, 133 N.W. 142, 145. "An inherently incredible story is not made…

Pellerin Ldry. Mach. Sales v. Jeffcoats

I. The verdict of the jury was and is manifestly against all reasonable probability, and contrary to the…