From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Apr 19, 2006
C.A. #0:05-3029-PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2006)

Summary

concluding the double jeopardy clause was not implicated when the plaintiff was sanctioned twice for one prison disciplinary charge, first through an informal resolution and then through a disciplinary hearing regarding the same charge

Summary of this case from Mayweather v. Guice

Opinion

C.A. #0:05-3029-PMD.

April 19, 2006


ORDER


This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and the case dismissed. Because plaintiff is proceedingpro se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.

Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases, and submit findings and recommendations to this Court.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report. Moreover, the report and recommendation sent to plaintiff was returned with "Released" marked on the envelope, and no change of address had been given as directed by the court.

In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice must be `sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of theconsequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.

The court issued an order on October 28, 2005 instructing plaintiff to keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing of any change of address.

A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law, therefore, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is hereby adopted as the order of this Court. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and the case is dismissed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Apr 19, 2006
C.A. #0:05-3029-PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2006)

concluding the double jeopardy clause was not implicated when the plaintiff was sanctioned twice for one prison disciplinary charge, first through an informal resolution and then through a disciplinary hearing regarding the same charge

Summary of this case from Mayweather v. Guice

concluding the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated when the plaintiff was sanctioned twice for one prison disciplinary charge, first through an informal resolution and then through a disciplinary hearing regarding the same charge

Summary of this case from Coles v. Washington
Case details for

Anderson v. Padula

Case Details

Full title:Stanley Anderson, #189480, Plaintiff, v. Anthony J. Padula, Warden; Annie…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Apr 19, 2006

Citations

C.A. #0:05-3029-PMD (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2006)

Citing Cases

Mayweather v. Guice

Plaintiff's reliance on the Double Jeopardy Clause is misplaced because prison disciplinary proceedings are…

Coles v. Washington

We have long recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the imposition of all additional…