Joseph Schaefer v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Case No. 1:26-cv-877-RMG Joseph Schaefer, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Dkt. No. 6).

Plaintiff was advised that he had 14 days to file written objections to the R & R and a failure to file written objections would result in limited clear error district court review and waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the district court. (Id. at 6). No objections have been filed.

I. Background Plaintiff seeks to have the filing fee for his Social Security appeal of $405.00 be waived. (Dkt. No. 3). The Magistrate Judge summarized in the R & R that Plaintiff had significant assets and a monthly excess of income over expenses in excess of $900.00. (Id. at 2, 6). For this reason, the Magistrate Judge found that payment of the filing fee would not render Plaintiff destitute or impose an undue burden upon him. (Id. at 4-5). After the Magistrate Judge issued the R & R, Plaintiff paid the filing fee. (Dkt. No. 8).

II. Legal Standard The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

III. Discussion The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied. The Court ADOPTS the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 6) as the order of the Court and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 3).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. _s/Richard M. Gergel_ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge March 23, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina