From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Crenshaw

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jan 11, 2008
Civil Action No. 6:07-3791-SB (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 6:07-3791-SB.

January 11, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, which alleges violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By local rule, the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.

On December 13, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of the right to file specific, written objections to the R R within 10 days of the date of service of the R R. To date, no objections have been filed.

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. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R as the Order of this Court, and it is

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Crenshaw

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jan 11, 2008
Civil Action No. 6:07-3791-SB (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)
Case details for

Johnson v. Crenshaw

Case Details

Full title:Earl R. Johnson, #318291, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff Crenshaw; 2 Unnamed…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Jan 11, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 6:07-3791-SB (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2008)

Citing Cases

Samuel v. Ozmint

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has held that a federal district court should deny § 1983 relief if state law…