Robinson v. McHugh

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees and Affidavit 2 . The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 8/31/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Willie Earl Robinson,

)
) C/A No. 3:12-1146-MBS-SVH
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department )
ORDER
of the Navy,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Willie Earl Robinson, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on April 30, 2012,
alleging that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his disability. See 42 U.S.C. §§
12101, et seq. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the within
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fees
and Affidavit. On June 22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to clarify
his annual income and explain why he could not pay the $350 filing fee. The Magistrate Judge
attached special interrogatories to her order for Plaintiff’s use in filing his response. On July 16,
2012, Plaintiff returned the completed special interrogatories and acknowledged that it was not a
hardship to pay the $350 fee, but that he was following instructions from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which indicated that if Plaintiff had no “money for an attorney, [he] may
request from the court to appoint me an attorney, and the court will permit me to file without
payment of fees, costs, or other security.” ECF No. 14.
On August 2, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
found no evidence that requiring the payment of a filing fee would impose an undue hardship or

effectively block Plaintiff’s access to the courts. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that Plaintiff’s Application 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. This court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.

The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without
Payment of Fees and Affidavit (ECF No. 2) is denied. The case is recommitted to the Magistrate
Judge for additional pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 31, 2012

2