Gavin v. Smith Debnam Narrow et al, No. 7:2022cv03010 - Document 17 (D.S.C. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; 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. 14 ) and denies Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3 and 11 ). Plaintiff shall have 21 days to pay the full filing fee of $402.00 or this case will be dismissed. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/7/22. (rweb, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gavin v. Smith Debnam Narrow et al 7:22-cv-03010-BHH-KFM Date Filed 12/07/22 Entry Number 17 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Amber Gavin, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Smith Debnam Narron Drake ) Saintsing & Myers LLP, Jerry T. Myers, ) Elizabeth Blamer, Melissa A. Tulis, ) Discover, Discover Bank, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-3010-BHH ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Amber Gavin’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action 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 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald 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, in his Report 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. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 7:22-cv-03010-BHH-KFM Date Filed 12/07/22 Entry Number 17 Page 2 of 2 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. 14) and denies Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3 and 11). Plaintiff shall have 21 days to pay the full filing fee of $402.00 or this case will be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge December 7, 2022 Charleston, South Carolina 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
