Taylor v. Western Oklahoma State College et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LATAEVYON TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN OKLAHOMA STATE
COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-45-SLP
O R D E R
Plaintiff commenced this action alleging a violation of his civil rights under federal
law. See Compl. [Doc. No. 1]. Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
See Applications [Doc. Nos. 2, 7 and 9-1].
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R.&R.”) [Doc. No. 5] of
United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that Plaintiff’s Application [Doc. No. 2] be denied and the action dismissed unless Plaintiff
pays the full $405.00 filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of any order adopting the
R.&R.
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the findings set forth
in the R.&R. and further advised Plaintiff that failure to timely object would constitute a
waiver of his right to appellate review of the factual and legal matters in the R.&R. On
February 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Objection [Doc. No. 9] and states that he has sent two
applications with information about his mother’s income. He further states in his Objection
that he is a student, lives in his mother’s home and does not have a job at this time.
Case 5:26-cv-00045-SLP Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Magistrate Judge addressed only Plaintiff’s first Application and recommended
dismissal on grounds the Application was insufficient. See Doc. No. 2. But the record
reflects that Plaintiff filed a second Application on February 3, 2026, prior to the issuance
of the R.&R. See Doc. No. 7.
In the second Application, Plaintiff clarifies that he is an unemployed college
student. And Plaintiff states that he “receive[s] help from [his] parents the best that they
can.” Id. at 2. But Plaintiff fails to address the financial resources of his parents even
though the Magistrate Judge expressly advised Plaintiff that if he “relies on someone for
financial support, their financial resources must be included in the Application.” See Order
Doc. No. 4. (citing cases). Indeed, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to “submit a
new application . . . including the financial resources of any person financially supporting
him.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff attaches to his Objection yet another Application. See Doc. No. 9-1. He
states that his mother gives him $250.00 for food, he lives with his mother, and his parents
pay for his phone. But Plaintiff again fails to provide any information about the financial
resources of his mother, or any other person upon whom he relies for financial support.
Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies noted by the Magistrate Judge, the
Court finds Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5]
is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. Nos. 2, 7
and 9-1] are DENIED. Plaintiff is advised that if he does not pay the requisite $405.00
Case 5:26-cv-00045-SLP Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 3

3
filing fee to the Clerk of Court within twenty (21) days from the date of this Order, or by
March 18, 2026, his action will be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00045-SLP Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 3