IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

Miguel Loyloa, ) Case No.: 6:22-cv-00058-JD-KFM ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) OPINION & ORDER Mary Gordon Baker, Capt. Carter, M.) Lavorando, A.B. Hurd, S. Gartner, ) ) Defendants. ) )

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald (“Report and Recommendation” or “Report”), made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1 Plaintiff Miguel Loyola (“Loyola” or “Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (DE 16.) However, in light of Plaintiff’s previous “strikes,” he cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless his claim satisfies the exception for imminent physical harm provided by the “three-strikes” rule. See

(g); see also (DE 21, pp. 3-4.) The Report and Recommendation was issued on February 23, 2022, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that Plaintiff be given twenty-one (21) days to pay the $402 filing fee. (DE 21.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270- 71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1).

(4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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.,

(4th Cir. 2005). Upon review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (DE 7) is denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay the $402 filing fee within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and if Plaintiff fails to pay the full filing fee within this time period, the case will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cosepher aasson Joseph Dawson, IT United States District Judge April 1, 2022 Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that they have the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.