Herbert v. Cartledge

Filing 99

ORDER terminating 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming 93 Report and Recommendation; denying 95 Motion for Hearing; denying 96 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 96 Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying 96 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 3/18/2015.(eric, )

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

Robert Fletcher Herbert,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Warden Leroy Cartledge, of Perry
)
Correctional Institution, SCDC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No.: 0:14-cv-1090 DCN
ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
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 No objections
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
level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.

have been filed to the magistrate judge’s 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 this action is DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of
prosecution.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial (ECF No. 95) and
motion to amend the amended complaint, consolidate cases and for extension of time (ECF
No. 96) are DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

David C. Norton
United States District Judge
March 18, 2015
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.