Rivers v. Alteri et al

Filing 52

ORDER affirming 47 Report and Recommendation; denying 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 7/17/2015.(eric, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Rufus Rivers, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) G. Alteri, in his individual capacity as ) Berkeley County Detective; Bobby Shuler, ) in his individual capacity as Berkeley ) County Detective; Chad Shelton, in his ) individual capacity as Berkeley County ) Public Defender; William Myrick, in his ) individual capacity as SC Assistant Attorney ) General; Kimberly Manning, in her ) individual capacity as Supervisor at SC ) Department of Probation, Parole and ) Pardon Services; and Bryan Stirling, in his ) individual capacity as Director at SC ) Department of Corrections, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) C/A No.: 2:14-cv-1267 DCN BM ORDER The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. 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 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 plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. David C. Norton United States District Judge July 17, 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. 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.

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?