McAlister v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
McAlister v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Shanon M. McAlister, ) C/A No. 8:20-cv-04515-SAL ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION & ORDER ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court for review of the January 27, 2021 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin (the “Report”), made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and require Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee of $402. [ECF No. 12.] Attached to the Report was a Notice of Right to File Objections.
Id.No party filed objections to the Report, and the time for response has lapsed. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is DENIED. Plaintiff was required to pay the full filing fee by March 1, 2021.1 Plaintiff paid the required fee on February 25, 2021, and, as a result, the matter may
proceed. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge February 26, 2021 Florence, South Carolina
1 The court granted an extension of time to Plaintiff to pay the required filing fee by order dated February 19, 2021. [ECF No. 15.]
Reference
- Status
- Unknown