From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dukes v. Leak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dec 23, 2014
C/A No.: 0:14-cv-3340 DCN PJG (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2014)

Summary

holding that an inmate "has no protected liberty interest in his custody or security classification"

Summary of this case from Al-Haqq v. Scarborough

Opinion

C/A No.: 0:14-cv-3340 DCN PJG

12-23-2014

Michael A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Andre, Plaintiff, v. Officer Leak, SMU; Lt. Jones; Willie L. Eagleton; Annie Sellers; Brian Sterling, Director of the State of South Carolina Department of Corrections, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants.


ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants Annie Sellars and Brian Sterling be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

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 defendants Sellars and Sterling are DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge
December 23, 2014
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

Dukes v. Leak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dec 23, 2014
C/A No.: 0:14-cv-3340 DCN PJG (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2014)

holding that an inmate "has no protected liberty interest in his custody or security classification"

Summary of this case from Al-Haqq v. Scarborough
Case details for

Dukes v. Leak

Case Details

Full title:Michael A. Dukes, Sr., a/k/a Andre, Plaintiff, v. Officer Leak, SMU; Lt…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2014

Citations

C/A No.: 0:14-cv-3340 DCN PJG (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2014)

Citing Cases

Nunn v. N.C. Legislation

See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-248 (1983) (finding no constitutional right to be housed in a…

Firewalker-Fields v. Va. Dep't of Corr.

(citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976)). See also Dukes v. Leak, Case No. 0:14-cv-3340-DCN-PJG,…