Booth v. Sheriff Chuck Wright ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Joseph Booth, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 0:23-cv-4359-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Sheriff Chuck Wright; Major Leso; ) Sgt. K. Ashley; First Sgt. Pickle; Cpl. ) Esopa; Christopher Runyan, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Joseph Booth’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se filing, which the Court construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On October 4, 2023, Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the matter and finding that Plaintiff is not qualified to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of receiving a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. Additionally, it appears from the docket that the filing fee was paid on October 23, 2023. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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). Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 10) and denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge November 17, 2023 Charleston, South Carolina 2