Pratt v. United States Parcel Service, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Vickie L. Pratt, C/A No. 3:25-cv-10480-JFA-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER United Parcel Service, Inc.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Vickie Pratt, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action along with a request to proceed without paying the required filing fee. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion and application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 11). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this court should deny Plaintiff’s applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

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)(d) (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). Plaintiff was advised of her right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on September 4, 2025. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections

by September 18, 2025. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, 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). Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s application to

proceed without payment should be denied. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

(ECF No. 11). Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied. Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of this order to submit the required filing fee. This matter is recommitted back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 2, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge