United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, who recommends summarily
dismissing this action without prejudice. See ECF
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
commenced this action by filing a “Motion for Writ of
Mandamus” against a North Dakota county asking the
Court to order return of certain forfeited personal property.
See ECF No. 1. The Magistrate Judge entered an R
& R recommending summary dismissal because this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to issue the requested writ
of mandamus. R & R at pp. 2-4. Separately, the Magistrate
Judge issued an order granting Petitioner's motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and requiring him to pay
the $350 filing fee in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§
1914 and 1915. See ECF No. 10.
does not specifically object to the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's R & R. The
Court discerns no error in the R & R and will therefore
adopt it. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315;
Camby, 718 F.2d at 199-200.
within the time for filing objections, Petitioner filed a
letter asking if he can voluntarily withdraw this action to
avoid the $350 filing fee that he has incurred. See
ECF No. 15. Although prisoners such as Petitioner may
commence a civil action without prepaying the filing fee and
thereby proceed in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(“PLRA”) provides that “if a prisoner
brings a civil action . . . in forma pauperis,
the prisoner shall be required to pay the full
amount of a filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1) (emphasis added); see also Bruce v.
Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627, 630 (2016) (explaining that in
enacting the PLRA, “Congress required prisoners to pay
filing fees for the suits or appeals they launch”);
see, e.g., Fleming v. Reynolds, No.
2:07-cv-01212-MBS, 2007 WL 2156622, at *1 (D.S.C. July 26,
2007) (“To the extent the request is properly before
the court, the court is without authority to waive payment of
the filing fee.”). Thus, Petitioner still must pay the
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R
& R [ECF No. 12] and DISMISSES this
action without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.