Lewis v. Palmer

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Justin Jamal Lewis, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-9758-BHH v. ) ) ORDER John Palmer, S. Terry, K. Borem, Duran,) Dunbar, Burdette, Spikes, Burley, ) Angelica Brown, Cox, Pope, Rapley, ) McAllister, Felicia McKie, Don Phillips, ) Timothy Wheeler, Joel Anderson, S. ) Richardson, Dennis Patterson, Dr. Chris) Kunlele, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (“Report”), which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., and wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (See ECF Nos. 15, 19.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, however, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 19), and the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 15). The Court grants Plaintiff 21 days to pay the filing fee of $405.00 or else this case will be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge September 30, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina