Smith v. Print Machine, Inc., The et al

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of entry of this order to submit the filing fee. Denying 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Louie Lawton Smith, Jr. Adopting 7 Report and Recommendation. (Filing Fee due by 10/13/2016.). Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/29/16. (mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Louie Lawton Smith, Jr.,

C/A No. 0:16-2918-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
The Print Machine, Inc., a South Carolina
Corporation; Kasey Cooper Fay, President of
T.P.M., Inc.; Jim Norris, Human Resource
Manager of T.P.M.; Chris Fay, Vice President
of T.P.M.; Jerry Cooper, Chairman of T.P.M.;
and Matt Luther, T.P.M. Manager of
Columbia,
Defendants.
Louie Lawton Smith, Jr. (“Smith”), proceeding pro se, filed an action alleging wrongful
termination against his former employer, The Print Machine Inc. and some of its management
employees. (ECF No. 1). Along with his complaint, Smith filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, which would waive the required filing fees. (ECF No. 3). The sole issue
addressed by this Report and Recommendation is whether Smith should be required to pay the
filing fee, or whether his financial condition justifies waiver of payment.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that Smith’s current financial situation does not justify a
grant of his request for indigent status. (ECF No. 7). The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection
is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).

facts and standards of law on this matter, and this court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation. Smith was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered
on the docket on August 29, 2016. The Magistrate Judge gave Smith until September 15, 2016,
to file objections. However, Smith failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give an
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the
Report, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 7). Smith’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
DENIED. Furthermore, in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Smith
has 14 days from the date of entry of this order to submit the required filing fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 29, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2