LUMPKIN
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied a pro se plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying filing fees) in a case alleging discriminatory denial of a $200,000 car loan by Bank of America. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish financial indigency given his eligibility for substantial credit.
The plaintiff did not establish in forma pauperis status. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion because a party alleging financial eligibility for substantial credit cannot simultaneously demonstrate the poverty necessary for in forma pauperis status.
“The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff did not establish in forma pauperis status where the complaint alleges that he was financially eligible to receive, but was wrongly denied, a $200,000 loan for a car.”
Establishes the factual basis for denying in forma pauperis status—the contradiction between claiming financial eligibility for substantial credit and claiming poverty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Lumpkin filed a complaint against Bank of America alleging wrongful denial of a $200,000 car loan. In his complaint, Lumpkin alleged he was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) and the complaint (Dkt. 1). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the motion be denied. Dkt. 3. The time for filing objections has passed.
The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff did not establish in forma pauperis status where the complaint alleges that he was financially eligible to receive, but was wrongly denied, a $200,000 loan for a car. Dkt. 3; Dkt. 1 at 2 (alleging “there was no legitimate financial basis for the denial" of credit other than a discriminatory reason). After conducting an independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 3) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is denied. The Court notes that a contrary ruling was issued in an earlier case. The instant case is materially different. See Dkt. 3 at 3.
3. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee to continue this action. Failure to pay the filing fee within fourteen (14) days will result in the dismissal of this matter without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on January 21, 2025.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se