Brooks v. Ollie et al
ORDER RULING ON 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.41. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 01/12/2017. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Ollie, Judge J. Platt, et al,
) C.A. #2:16-1904-PMD
This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the within
action be dismissed. 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
court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). 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
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 all pretrial matters in cases
filed under Title 42 United States Code, § 1983, and submit findings and recommendations to
case and the applicable law. Finding no error in the report, this court adopts the report and
recommendation and incorporates it into this order.
For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby ordered that the within
action is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 12, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
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?