From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brownlee v. Williams

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Mar 22, 2007
C/A No. 2:07-0078 DCN RSC (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2007)

Summary

noting that buildings and facilities do not qualify as persons for purposes of § 1983; citing Allison v. California Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969); Preval v. Reno, 57 F. Supp. 2d 307, 310 (E.D. Va. 1999); Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989)

Summary of this case from Clair v. St. Mary's Cnty. States Attorneys Office

Opinion

C/A No. 2:07-0078 DCN RSC.

March 22, 2007


ORDER


The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process against defendant Medical Department Staff Nurses.

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)(1). 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), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

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 the consequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.

A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is affirmed, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process against defendant Medical Department Staff Nurses.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Brownlee v. Williams

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Mar 22, 2007
C/A No. 2:07-0078 DCN RSC (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2007)

noting that buildings and facilities do not qualify as persons for purposes of § 1983; citing Allison v. California Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969); Preval v. Reno, 57 F. Supp. 2d 307, 310 (E.D. Va. 1999); Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989)

Summary of this case from Clair v. St. Mary's Cnty. States Attorneys Office

accepting magistrate judge's findings that defendant "nurses" is not a proper defendant

Summary of this case from Turner v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail
Case details for

Brownlee v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:Naamon H. Brownlee, aka Naamon Henry Brownlee Plaintiff, v. S. Williams…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Mar 22, 2007

Citations

C/A No. 2:07-0078 DCN RSC (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2007)

Citing Cases

Turner v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail

See McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr., 788 F. Supp. 890 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1992) (reasoning jails are not…

Thompson v. Pickens Cnty. Jail

The "Medical Staff" is not a proper defendant in a Section 1983 action. Brownlee v. Williams, Civil Action…