Mallard v. Ali et al
ORDER ADOPTING 11 Report and Recommendations, dismissing defendant North Charleston Police Department. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 5/2/11. (chub, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Terrell L. Mallard,
Alan Ali, US Marshall; James E. Roberts,
Sgt; Jonathan L. Burnem, Officer, and
North Charleston Police Department,
) C.A. #2:11-492-PMD-BHH
The above-captioned case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation
that the case be dismissed as to defendant North Charleston Police Department. Because plaintiff
is pro se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.1
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
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the magistrate judge is authorized to review pretrial matters and submit
findings and recommendations to this Court.
court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).2 No objections have been filed
to the magistrate judge's report.
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this
case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby
ordered that defendant North Charleston Police Department be summarily dismissed as a party in
this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
ORDERED, that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted as the order
of this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 2, 2011
Charleston, South Carolina
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?