United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
March 24, 2015
James Edward Gomeringer, Plaintiff,
John Pack, Defendant.
TIMOTHY M. CAIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, James Edward Gomeringer, filed this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to pay the full filing fee. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 9 at 4). However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 9) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED, and Plaintiff shall have thirty-one (31) days from the date of this order to pay the $400.00 filing fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.