You're viewing Docket Item 26 from the case Martin v. McCall et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




4:13-cv-01567-DCN Date Filed 09/20/13 Entry Number 26 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Plaintiff,



Anthony Fred Martin,

) C/A No. 4:13-cv-1567 DCN
)
)

)

) O R D E R

vs.

)
Michael McCall, Lieutenant McCauley, and )
Officer Timms,
)
)
)
____________________________________)

Defendants.

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommenda-

tion that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of

process, unless plaintiff submits an Amended Complaint stating a plausible claim within the time

period permitted for objections.

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

1

1

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

4:13-cv-01567-DCN Date Filed 09/20/13 Entry Number 26 Page 2 of 2

recommendation were timely filed on September 9, 2013, however, an Amended Complaint

was not submitted.

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 case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without

issuance and service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 20, 2013
Charleston, South Carolina


David C. Norton
United States District Judge

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

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

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.