Twitty v. SCDC Classification Representative's Headquarters Dept et al

Filing 18

ORDER affirming 7 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge David C Norton on 5/27/2010.(eric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Irving E. Twitty, #270014, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SCDC Classification Representative(s); ) Headquarters Dept.; Mr. James E. Brennan, ) Director of Classification/Records; Ms. Linda B. ) Dean, Institution Classification Case Manager; ) Ms. Claudia Bailey Lumpkins, Inst. Classification ) Case Worker; Mr. Ricky Bellinger, Institution ) Classification Case Manager; Mr. Michael ) Truesdale, Staff Attorney General Counsel SCDC ) Headquarter Office; Mr. David M. Tatarsky, ) General Counsel SCDC Headquarters; Mr. G. ) Ramey, Inmate Grievance Coordinator SCDC ) Headquarter Dept.; Ms. Phyllis G. Hopkins, Inst. ) Assoc. Warden Macdougall Corr Inst Warden ) Office; Mr. Edsel T. Taylor, Inst. Warden ) Macdougall Corr Inst Wardens Office; Ms. Mary ) Coleman, Chief Grievance Coordin SCDC ) Headquarters Dept.; Christopher Florian, Staff ) Attorney General Counsel SCDC Headquarters ) Office Dept.; Heath M. Stewart III, Private ) Attorney for SCDC General Counsel; John Ozmint, ) SCDC Director SCDC Headquarters Dept Office; ) P. Campbell, Institution Classification Case ) Worker Manning Correction Institution, ) ) Defendants. ) C/A No. 0:10-387 DCN

ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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 ).1 Objections to the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation were timely filed on May 25, 2010. 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

David C. Norton Chief United States District Judge Charleston, South Carolina May 27, 2010 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

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.

1