Summary
finding the plaintiff had failed to establish the third element—cause—where the allegations involved the failure to remedy a single incident
Summary of this case from Battle v. BishopOpinion
C/A No. 8:12-cv-1480 DCN
04-05-2013
William Ray Ward, Plaintiff, v. William R. Byars, and Lake E. Summers, Defendants.
ORDER
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant William R. Byars's motion to dismiss be granted and defendant Lake E. Summers's motion to dismiss 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). Objections to the magistrate judge's report and
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.
recommendation were timely filed on March 21, 2013 by plaintiff. No objections were filed by defendants Byars and Summers.
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, defendant Byars's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and defendant Summers's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
April 5, 2013
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