Opinion
Civil Action No. 8:09-2166-SB.
November 9, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By local rule, the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On October 7, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of his right to file specific, written objections to the R R within ten days of the date of service of the R R. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Plaintiff recently submitted a letter requesting information on all of his cases (of which there are at least 15). In response, the Clerk's Office sent the Plaintiff a list of the cases indicating which cases are open and which are closed as well as the deadlines for filing responses to motions and/or objections to the R R. A copy of the Plaintiff's letter as well as the Clerk's response was filed in all of the Plaintiff's open cases.
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 (Entry 11) 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.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.