Rivers v. Alteri et al
ORDER affirming 47 Report and Recommendation; denying 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 7/17/2015.(eric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
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,
C/A No.: 2:14-cv-1267 DCN BM
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
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.
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?