George Moses, III v. Richland School District One

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION George Moses, III, ) Case No. 3:25-cv-14028-JDA-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Richland School District One, ) ) Defendant. ) ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 2.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings.

On January 13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the motion be denied. [Doc. 8.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 6.] Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time to do so 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 * The Clerk docketed a letter from Plaintiff on January 26, 2026. [Doc. 10.] To the extent the letter could be construed as objections, Plaintiff does not contest the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he does not meet the criteria for indigent status. [See id. at 1 (“I did not request a waiver of the filing fee, nor did I assert financial hardship.”).] Rather, Plaintiff claims he “tendered full payment of the $405.00 filing fee by money order.” [Id.] In a Text Order dated January 29, 2026, the Magistrate Judge informed Plaintiff that the Court never received or cashed the money order and advised him to “contact the [United States Postal Service] about a lost money order.” [Doc. 11.] determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court has reviewed this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is DENIED, and Plaintiff is ordered to submit the required $405.00 filing fee by February 27, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge February 13, 2026 Columbia, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.