From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Treece v. Lominick

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jul 17, 2009
C/A No. 3:08-3524 DCN (D.S.C. Jul. 17, 2009)

Opinion

C/A No. 3:08-3524 DCN.

July 17, 2009


ORDER


The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 31) be granted, and the plaintiff's motions for default (doc. 16) and to dismiss (doc. 27) be denied.

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, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiff's motion for default and motion to dismiss are denied.

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

Treece v. Lominick

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jul 17, 2009
C/A No. 3:08-3524 DCN (D.S.C. Jul. 17, 2009)
Case details for

Treece v. Lominick

Case Details

Full title:VIRGIL TREECE, Plaintiff, v. CHAD LOMINICK, PROGRAM DIRECTOR; PAULA…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Jul 17, 2009

Citations

C/A No. 3:08-3524 DCN (D.S.C. Jul. 17, 2009)

Citing Cases

Barfield v. S.C. Dept. of Mental Health

The plaintiff cannot rely on the situation of civilly-committed patients at the BRCI because SVP patients at…