Summary
finding that "when the Warden fails to respond to an inmate's Step 1 grievance, the inmate must refrain from filing suit in federal court until all time periods for both steps to be completed have expired"
Summary of this case from Rivera v. StirlingOpinion
Civil Action No. 4:07-3480-SB.
December 5, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, which alleges violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By local rule, the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On November 9, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of the right to file specific, written objections to the R R within 10 days of the date of service of the R R. To date, no objections have been filed.
Absent timely objection from a dissatisfied party, a district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, a Magistrate Judge's factual or legal conclusions.Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Wells v. Shriner's Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, because the Plaintiff did not file any specific, written objections, there are no portions of the R R to which the Court must conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R as the Order of this Court, and it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.