Opinion
C/A 2:23-3967-JD-SVH
08-22-2023
Anthony G. Bryant, Plaintiff, v. AT&T Corporation; Cricket Wireless; and Meta Corporation, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Anthony G. Bryant (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on August 10, 2023. On the same day Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). [ECF No. 2]. Because Plaintiff has a history of filing frivolous cases while proceeding IFP, this court previously entered a pre-filing injunction against him pursuant to Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 134-35 & n.* (4th Cir. 1977). See Bryant v. U.S. Dept of Interior, No. 2:18-cv-2593-MBS, 2018 WL 5255009, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2018), aff'd sub nom. Bryant v. U.S. Dep't of Educ., 764 Fed.Appx. 344 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, No. 18-9246, 2019 WL 4921844 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2019) (“Prefiling Injunction”). The 2018 Pre-filing Injunction required “Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee before he may proceed with a civil action .... If he does not, th[e] civil action will be summarily dismissed.” As quoted in Graham, the policy behind the IFP statute provides:
(W)hile persons who are unable to pay costs or give security therefor should be allowed to prosecute or defend actions for the protection of their rights . . ., they should not be allowed under the cover of the statute to abuse the process of the court by prosecuting suits which are frivolous or malicious. As said by Judge Aldrich in O'Connell v. Mason, supra, 1 Cir., 132 F. 245, 247: ‘It is quite clear that Congress, while intending to extend to poor and meritorious suitors the privilege of having their wrongs redressed without the ordinary burdens of litigation, at the same time intended to safeguard members of the public against an abuse of the privilege by evil-minded persons who might avail themselves of the shield of immunity from costs for the purpose of harassing those with whom they were not in accord, by subjecting them to vexatious and frivolous legal proceedings.'Graham v Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 134-35 & n.* (4th Cir. 1977).
Considering Graham and in keeping with the court's orders denying Plaintiff IFP status, see Bryant v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, No. 2:18-cv-3037-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 28, 2018), aff'd, 754 Fed.Appx. 206 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, No. 18-8905, 2019 WL 1767167 (U.S. June 24, 2019), the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP be denied.If the district judge accepts this recommendation, it is further recommended Plaintiff be allowed fourteen days from the date of the order denying indigent status to submit the required filing fee. It is further recommended the district judge order the Clerk of Court to close the case if Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within 14 days of the district judge's order
The Clerk of Court has assigned a civil action number for docket-control purposes.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n 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.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).