Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER affirming 17 Report and Recommendation; this case is transferred to the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. The clerk is directed to transmit the complete record of this case to that district. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 5/20/2014.(eric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Marvin Eugene Palmer,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A No. 2:14-cv-1214 DCN
ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Western
North Carolina, Charlotte Division.
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 have been filed to the magistrate judge’s

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

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 case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, Charles R. Jonas Federal
Building, 401 West Trade Street, Room 210, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202. The clerk’s office
is directed to transmit the complete record in this case to that district.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

David C. Norton
United States District Judge

May 20, 2014
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.

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.