IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Dianne Wilson Skipper, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 2:19-2833-RMG ) vs, ) ) Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner ) of Social Security, ) ) ORDER Defendant. ) ) ao) This matter comes before the Court on an appeal relating to Plaintiff's motion for authorization to pursue a civil action without prepayment of the filing fee because of an alleged inability to afford the $400.00 fee. (Dkt. No. 8). The Magistrate Judge, after requesting and receiving additional information on the Plaintiff's financial status, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the motion be denied because Plaintiff had sufficient assets to pay her filing fee and would, consequently, not meet the requirements to file in forma pauperis under

. (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff filed no objection to theR & R. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make the final determination rests with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s R & R to which specific objection has been made. In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the R& R to “only satisfy itself that there

-|-

is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Note. The Court has reviewed the R & R and record in this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge has ably and accurately addressed the issues and correctly concluded that Plaintiff plainly fails to meet the requirements for relief under

(a)(1). Consequently, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of this Court and denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has thirty days to pay her filing fee. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge November @ 2019 Charleston, South Carolina

-2-