Black v. Crosby et al

Filing 10

ORDER affirming 6 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge David C Norton on 12/2/2009.(eric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA B A R N E Y RAY BLACK, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) J E F F CROSBY, DEPUTY SHERIFF; ISAAC ) M . STONE, III, SOLICITOR OF JASPER ) C O U N T Y , SOUTH CAROLINA, ) ) R e s p o n d e n ts . ) C/A No. 2:09-2594 DCN

ORDER

T h e above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's re c o m m e n d a tio n that the petition be dismissed without prejudice and without requiring th e respondents to file an answer. T h is court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the m a g istra te judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, re je c t, 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 th a t Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal c o n c lu s io n s of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, a n y party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate c o u rt 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

tim e ly filed on November 25, 2009. A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report a c c u r a te ly summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate ju d g e 's report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, and the petition is DISMISSED w ith o u t prejudice and without requiring the respondents to file an answer. A N D IT IS SO ORDERED.

David C. Norton C h ie f United States District Judge C h a rle s to n , South Carolina D e c e m b e r 2, 2009
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

T h e parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by R u le s 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