Allen v. Allen
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 9 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is directed to pay the requisite filing fee within thirty days of the date of entry of this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to comply with the terms of this order will subject his complaint to being dismissed, without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 4/10/2018.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Horace Dwayne Allen,
) C/A No. 2:17-3476-MBS-MGB
) ORDER AND OPINION
Toya Shantel Allen,
Plaintiff Horace Dwayne Allen, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to the court’s
diversity jurisdiction on December 27, 2017. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) on December 27, 2017. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP motion and issued a Report and
Recommendation on March 13, 2018, in which she noted that Plaintiff is currently employed with
an annual salary of $41,298.00. The Magistrate Judge further observed that Plaintiff states he has
$500.00 in his bank account remaining after bills are paid, a 401K account, and joint ownership of
automobiles and a residence. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff possesses the means
to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the IFP motion be denied.
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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 & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff motion for IFP (ECF No. 3) is
denied. Plaintiff is directed to pay the requisite filing fee within thirty days of the date of entry of
this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to comply with the terms of this order will subject
his complaint to being dismissed, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
April 10, 2018
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?