Ringley v. Horry County Council et al

Filing 14

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R 11 of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's IFP applicati on 3 . Plaintiff must submit the required filing fee of $350.00, plus the administrative fee of $50.00, within fourteen days from the date of this Order (no later than March 21, 2017). If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by March 21, 2017,this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 03/07/2017. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Jennifer Ringley,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Horry County Council, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:17-cv-00395-RBH-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff Jennifer Ringley, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a complaint and
an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”).1 See ECF Nos. 1 & 3. The matter is
currently before the Court for review of a Report and Recommendation (R & R) entered by United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III and made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 11. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s IFP application. Id. at 4.
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 this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.2 In the

1

More specifically, Plaintiff filed an AO 240, entitled “Application to Proceed in District Court W ithout
Prepaying Fees or Costs.” See ECF No. 3.

2

Objections were due by March 6, 2017. See ECF No. 11.

absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 11] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP application [ECF No. 3]. Plaintiff must submit the required filing
fee of $350.00, plus the administrative fee of $50.00, within fourteen days from the date of this
Order (no later than March 21, 2017). If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by March 21, 2017,
this case will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.
The Court recommits this case to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
March 7, 2017

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2