From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Youmans v. City of N. Charleston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 13, 2013
C/A No. 2:11-cv-3227 DCN BHH (D.S.C. May. 13, 2013)

Opinion

C/A No. 2:11-cv-3227 DCN BHH

05-13-2013

Milton L. Youmans, Plaintiff, v. City of North Charleston, Defendant.


ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant City of North Charleston'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). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's

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.

report and recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is MOOT, and the case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 74).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge
May 13, 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


Summaries of

Youmans v. City of N. Charleston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
May 13, 2013
C/A No. 2:11-cv-3227 DCN BHH (D.S.C. May. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Youmans v. City of N. Charleston

Case Details

Full title:Milton L. Youmans, Plaintiff, v. City of North Charleston, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 13, 2013

Citations

C/A No. 2:11-cv-3227 DCN BHH (D.S.C. May. 13, 2013)