James E. Gates United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This pro se case is before the court on the application (D.E. 1) by plaintiff Lyshone Bynum Edge ("plaintiff") to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On 4 September 2018, the court entered a notice of deficiency and order (D.E. 4) highlighting an internal inconsistency in plaintiff's application and permitting her to file an amended in forma pauperis application no later than 18 September 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure by her to file an amended in forma pauperis application by 18 September 2018 might result in a recommendation by the undersigned to the presiding District Judge that her application be denied. Despite the foregoing admonition, plaintiff has not filed an amended in forma pauperis application. Based on the internal inconsistency in plaintiff's application and her failure to timely amend the application, the court finds that plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated the inability to pay the required court costs.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's application be DENIED and that plaintiff be required to pay the requisite filing fee pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3.2, E.D.N.C.
Subject to modification by order of the court, this rule provides:
In all civil actions in which the court denies the plaintiff's [application] to proceed
in forma pauperis, the plaintiff shall be allowed 30 days to pay the requisite filing fee. If the plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee, the clerk shall re-designate the action as a miscellaneous case and close the matter without further order from the court.
IT IS DIRECTED that a copy of this Memorandum and Recommendation be served on plaintiff or, if represented, her counsel. Plaintiff shall have until 16 October 2018 to file written objections to this Memorandum and Recommendation. The presiding District Judge must conduct his own review (that is, make a de novo determination) of those portions of the Memorandum and Recommendation to which objection is properly made and may accept, reject, or modify the determinations in the Memorandum and Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Local Civ. R. 1.1 (permitting modification of deadlines specified in local rules), 72.4(b), E.D.N.C.
If a party does not file written objections by the foregoing deadline, 16 October 2018, plaintiff will be giving up the right to review of the Memorandum and Recommendation by the presiding District Judge as described above, and the presiding District Judge may enter an order or judgment based on the Memorandum and Recommendation without such review. In addition, plaintiff's failure to file written objections by the foregoing deadline will bar plaintiff from appealing to the Court of Appeals from an order or judgment of the presiding District Judge based on the Memorandum and Recommendation. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985).
SO ORDERED, this 1st day of October 2018.
/s/_________
James E. Gates
United States Magistrate Judge
Local Civ. R. 3.2.