Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

King v. Wilson

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

January 10, 2019

Randy King, Plaintiff,
v.
Heather Wilson, Secretary of the Air Force, Defendant.[1]

          ORDER

         This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed on July 10, 2018 (ECF No. 10). The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the court DENIES Plaintiff Randy King's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3).

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a full recitation. (ECF No. 16 at 1-4.) As brief background, on June 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant Heather Wilson (“Defendant”), alleging employment discrimination in violation of several federal statutes. (ECF No. 1 at 3, 5-6.) Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Form AO 240, titled “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ” (ECF No. 3), which the Magistrate Judge construed as a Motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 10 at 1.)

         On June 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered her Report. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that,

Plaintiff would not be rendered destitute by being required to pay the filing costs of $400 (which includes the $50 administrative fee), nor is there any indication that requiring payment of these costs would impose an undue hardship or effectively block Plaintiff's access to the courts. In his [M]otion [to proceed in forma pauperis], Plaintiff indicates that he is retired and his take-home pay is $4, 220 per month. He indicates that he has $200 in bank accounts. He lists $265, 100 in assets of value and $5, 761 in monthly expenses.

(Id. at 2.) The Magistrate Judge further stated that,

If the district judge accepts this recommendation, Plaintiff will have fourteen days from the date of the order denying in forma pauperis status to submit the required filing fee. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the specified time period[, ] it is recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

(Id.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge's Report informed the parties of their right to file objections to the Report within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of the Report. (Id. at 3-4.) The Report was mailed to Plaintiff on July 10, 2018. (ECF No. 11.) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections to the Report.

         Also on July 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Proper Form Order, directing Plaintiff “to complete a standard complaint form for employment discrimination actions.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court; the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court is engages in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made specific objections; the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         III. DISCUSSION

         On July 10, 2018, as part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties of their right to file objections by July 24, 2018. (ECF No. 10 at 3-4.) Neither of the parties filed any objections to the Report by this date. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation without modification. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Absent objections, the court must only ensure 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). If a party fails to file specific, written objections to the Report, the party forfeits the right to appeal the District Court's decision concerning the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, since none of the parties filed any objections to the Report, and the court observes no clear error on the face of the record, the court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.