Blakely v. SC Department of Corrections
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS: The Court adopts the 10 Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff is given fifteen (15) days from the date of the issuance of this Order to pay the filing fee of $400, and the Office of the Clerk of Court shall withhold entry of judgment until such time expires. If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the filing fee, the Complaint shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under the "three strikes" rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the Clerk shall enter the required final judgment at the close of the fifteen-day period permitted for payment of the filing fee. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 11/29/2017. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
JAMES G. BLAKELY,
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§
§
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
§
CORRECTIONS AND EMPLOYEES,
§
B. STIRLING, DENNIS BUSH, MR. G.
§
a/k/a NURSE G HCA, AND NURSE COOKE, §
§
Defendants.
§
§
Civil Action No. 5:17-02658-MGL-KDW
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied.
The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on November 2, 2017, ECF No. 10, but Plaintiff
failed to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
Plaintiff is given fifteen (15) days from the date of the issuance of this Order to pay the filing fee
of $400, and the Office of the Clerk of Court shall withhold entry of judgment until such time
expires. If Plaintiff fails to timely pay the filing fee, the Complaint shall be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE under the “three strikes” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the Clerk
shall enter the required final judgment at the close of the fifteen-day period permitted for payment
of the filing fee.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 29th day of November 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
3
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?