Lytle v. Samuels et al

Filing 13

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 8 ) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is D ENIED.Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have thirty-one (31) days to pay the $400 fee (filing fee plus administrative fee), or this case will be dismissed. If Plaintiff pays the fee, this action should be recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further initial review.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 09/12/2016. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Curtis Jerome Lytle,

Plaintiff,
vs.
Charles Samuels, Jr.; Christopher
Zych; Curtis Mabe; and Dale Rupert,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:16-02277-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Curtis Jerome Lytle, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (ECF No. 1,
Compl.). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this
matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff was advised of his
right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 9 at 4). Plaintiff has not filed any objections and,
the time to do so has now run.1
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). The court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and
1

The court notes that Plaintiff has filed an identical action in this court, C/A No. 5:16-cv1784, and he also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in that action. (C/A No. 5:16-cv1784, ECF No. 2). The Magistrate Judge filed a Report in that action recommending the denial
of Plaintiff’s motion and Plaintiff filed objections to that Report. (C/A No. 5:16-cv-1784, ECF
Nos. 8 and 10). However, the court overruled Plaintiff’s objections and adopted the Report in
that action. (C/A No. 5:16-cv-1784, ECF No. 14). Rather than pay the filing fee in both cases,
Plaintiff may wish to proceed with only one of the identical actions.

conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In that
case, the court reviews the Report only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a thorough review of the record int his action, the court adopts the Magistrate
Judge's Report (ECF No. 8) and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have thirty-one (31) days to pay the $400 fee (filing fee plus
administrative fee), or this case will be dismissed. If Plaintiff pays the fee, this action should be
recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further initial review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
September 12, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2