From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Gossett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Oct 17, 2013
C/A NO. 3:13-2552-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2013)

Summary

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Shaffer

Opinion

C/A NO. 3:13-2552-CMC-SVH

2013-10-17

Isaac Murray, Plaintiff, v. Judge Paige J. Gossett; and All the People in the World, Defendants.


OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court on February 21, 2013. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On September 25, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an order recommending that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp) be denied. 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. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge 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 reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.") (citation omitted).

After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.

Plaintiff's motion to proceed ifp is denied. Plaintiff shall have until Friday, November 1, 2013, to pay the full filing fee in this matter ($400). Failure to pay the filing fee by November 1, 2013 will result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
October 17, 2013


Summaries of

Murray v. Gossett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Oct 17, 2013
C/A NO. 3:13-2552-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2013)

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Shaffer

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Snyder

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Snyder

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Internal Revenue Serv.

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Szabo

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Wilson

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Snyder

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from S.D.J. v. Jordan

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Snyder

adopting and incorporating the Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

adopting and incorporating the Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Jordan

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Day

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Gunter

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Richland Cnty. Register of Deeds

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Wolff v. Capeside Psychiatry & Addiction Care, PLC

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Snyder

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Dist. 5 Found. for Educ. Excellence

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Dist. 5 Found. for Educ. Excellence

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Ceasar v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Smith v. Print Mach., Inc.

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Pinnex

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Randall v. Tierney

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Hope v. Rock Hill Sch. Dist. III

adopting and incorporating Report and Recommendation

Summary of this case from Doherty v. PNC Mortg.
Case details for

Murray v. Gossett

Case Details

Full title:Isaac Murray, Plaintiff, v. Judge Paige J. Gossett; and All the People in…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Date published: Oct 17, 2013

Citations

C/A NO. 3:13-2552-CMC-SVH (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2013)

Citing Cases

Wolff v. Capeside Psychiatry & Addiction Care, PLC

(3) Is the litigant forced to contribute her last dollar, or render herself destitute, to prosecute her…

Willis v. S.C. Dep't of Mental Health

(3) Is the litigant forced to contribute her last dollar, or render herself destitute, to prosecute her…