You're viewing Docket Item 10 from the case Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




1:13-cv-02283-DCN-SVH Date Filed 09/20/13 Entry Number 10 Page 1 of 2

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

C/A No. 1:13-cv-2283 DCN SVH

Plaintiff,



Alice Marie Russell,




vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,

)
)
)
)
) O R D E R
)
)
)
)
)
___________________________________ )

Defendant.







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

tion that plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees be denied.

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). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s

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
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

1:13-cv-02283-DCN-SVH Date Filed 09/20/13 Entry Number 10 Page 2 of 2

report and recommendation.

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 plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of

Fees is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff has fourteen (14) days from the date of this

order to submit the required filing fee.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


David C. Norton
United States District Judge

September 20, 2013
Charleston, South Carolina

The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.