From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holmes v. Burris Liquor Stores, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 4, 2014
C/A No. 2:13-cv-1866 DCN BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2014)

Opinion

C/A No. 2:13-cv-1866 DCN BHH

02-04-2014

Anthony Holmes, Plaintiff, v. Burris Liquor Stores, Inc., Defendant.


ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted.

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.

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 defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case shall remain open as to defendant's pending counterclaims. If defendant does not intend to pursue such counterclaims, it should notify the court forthwith or else move for an entry of default.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge
February 4, 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

Holmes v. Burris Liquor Stores, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 4, 2014
C/A No. 2:13-cv-1866 DCN BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2014)
Case details for

Holmes v. Burris Liquor Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Anthony Holmes, Plaintiff, v. Burris Liquor Stores, Inc., Defendant.

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

Date published: Feb 4, 2014

Citations

C/A No. 2:13-cv-1866 DCN BHH (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2014)

Citing Cases

Wade v. Electromet Corp.

Boyer-Libertov.Fontainebleau Corp., 786 F.3d 264, 281 (4th Cir. 2015); see Brownv.Dep't of Health & Mental…