From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Childs v. Resurgent Capital Servs.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Feb 7, 2024
Civil Action 3:23-06938-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 3:23-06938-MGL

02-07-2024

WILLIAM CHILDS, Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff William Childs (Childs) filed this action against Defendant Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. He is representing himself.

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court deny Childs's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 12, 2024. To date, Childs has failed to file any 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Childs's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.'

Childs is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to submit the required filing fee if he wishes to pursue this action. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Childs v. Resurgent Capital Servs.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
Feb 7, 2024
Civil Action 3:23-06938-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2024)
Case details for

Childs v. Resurgent Capital Servs.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM CHILDS, Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

Date published: Feb 7, 2024

Citations

Civil Action 3:23-06938-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2024)