From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

True v. Seppala

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 17, 2015
C/A No.: 2:13-cv-2228 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2015)

Opinion

C/A No.: 2:13-cv-2228 DCN

08-17-2015

Thomas F. True, Plaintiff, v. Martin Seppala, and Nancy Seppala, Defendants.


ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice be denied, and defendants' remaining motions be dismissed as moot.

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

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. --------

have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

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, plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice is DENIED, and defendants' remaining motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge
August 17, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

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

True v. Seppala

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 17, 2015
C/A No.: 2:13-cv-2228 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2015)
Case details for

True v. Seppala

Case Details

Full title:Thomas F. True, Plaintiff, v. Martin Seppala, and Nancy Seppala…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Aug 17, 2015

Citations

C/A No.: 2:13-cv-2228 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2015)

Citing Cases

Holbrook v. Aldridge

Indeed, the defendants have filed motions for summary judgment, to which Holbrook filed a response, and the…

Frye v. Weymouth/Brooks Hill, LLC

) Instead, Defendant asserts that this case is like True v. Seppala, No. 2:13-cv-2228-DCN, 2015 WL…