Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:11-480-SB.
June 16, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide adequate medical care. Pursuant to local rule, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On May 24, 2011, after reviewing the Plaintiff's complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation ("R R") finding that the Plaintiff failed to name "persons" amenable to suit pursuant to section 1983 and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court summarily dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for failure to state a claim.
Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of his right to file specific, written objections to the R R within 14 days of being served with a copy. Despite this notice, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has now expired.
Absent timely objection from a dissatisfied party, a district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, a Magistrate Judge's factual or legal conclusions. Thomas v. Arn. 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Wells v. Shriner's Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, because the Plaintiff did not file any specific, written objections, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R R. After review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R R (Entry 18) is adopted, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 15, 2011 Charleston, South Carolina