From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vanover v. Blendowski

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Dec 5, 2006
C/A No. 3:05-2956-DCN-JRM (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2006)

Opinion

C/A No. 3:05-2956-DCN-JRM.

December 5, 2006


ORDER


The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. It was also recommended that plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answers, for a more definite statement, and for judgment on the pleadings be denied; for a TRO and writ of mandamus be denied; for summary judgment be denied; for a writ of mandams be denied; for a hearing be denied; and for default judgment 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 and the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Additionally, the plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answers, for a more definite statement and for judgment on the pleadings is denied; for a TRO and writ of mandamus is denied; for summary judgment is denied; for a writ of mandamus is denied; for a hearing is denied; and for default judgment is 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

Vanover v. Blendowski

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Dec 5, 2006
C/A No. 3:05-2956-DCN-JRM (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2006)
Case details for

Vanover v. Blendowski

Case Details

Full title:Johnny M. Vanover, Jr., Plaintiff, v. NFN Blendowski, Officer; NFN Ruski…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Dec 5, 2006

Citations

C/A No. 3:05-2956-DCN-JRM (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2006)

Citing Cases

Von Fox v. Mkt. St. Pavillion Hotel

Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892, 898 n. 8 (7th Cir.2001); see Smith v. Holtz,…

Von Fox v. Charleston City Police Dep't

Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892, 898 n. 8 (7th Cir.2001); see Smith v. Holtz,…