Opinion
Civil Action 5:23-CV-273
03-19-2024
KEVIN BYRD, Petitioner, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BRILL, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, JUDGE
The above referenced case is before this Court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that Defendant Correctional Officer Brill'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 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 [Doc. 12] is ADOPTED and Defendant Correctional Officer Brill's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein.