Opinion
C/A No. 6:12-cv-3187 DCN
03-07-2014
Arthur Lee Warren, #271600, Plaintiff, v. William R. Byars, Jr., Director; Gregory T. Knowlin, Warden; Major Kenneth Sharpe; DHO Captain Angela Brown; Officer George H. Roark; Captain Kevin Coleman; Captain Jannie Kelly; Captain Richard Chavlva; Captain Lee Pack; Captain Mack; Lieutenant Cedric Driffin; Lieutenant Tomlin; Lieutenant Larry; Sergeant Jones Sergeant Cooper; Officer Parker; Officer Mattias; Sergeant Edward Staggers; Sergeant Natoshia Williams; Cpl. Franklin Smith; Officer Anton Hunter; and Officer Jerrol Lewis, Defendants.
ORDER
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to defendants Byars, Sharpe, Roark, Kelly, Chavlva, Pack, Mack, Driffin, Tomlin, Larry, Jones, Cooper, Parker, Mattias, Staggers, Williams, Smith, Hunter, and Lewis.
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 ). Objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were filed on February 15, 2013. Although objections were filed out of time, they were reviewed and considered.
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 the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendants Byars, Sharpe, Roark, Kelly, Chavlva, Pack, Mack, Driffin, Tomlin, Larry, Jones, Cooper, Parker, Mattias, Staggers, Williams, Smith, Hunter, and Lewis. Defendants Knowlin, Brown, and Coleman remain active parties in this case.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
March 7, 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