Adams v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
Filing
28
ORDER granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; affirming 25 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge David C Norton on 11/5/2009.(eric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA G E O R G E M. ADAMS, #181283, Plaintiff, vs. S O U T H CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF C O R R E C T IO N S ; AND SGT. KARL VON M U T IU S , D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No. 3:09-1557 DCN
ORDER
T h e above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's re c o m m e n d a tio n that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to p la in tif f 's claims under § 1983, and any remaining state law claims be remanded to State c o u rt. It was also recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. T h is court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the m a g is tra te judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, re je c t, 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 th a t Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal c o n c lu s io n s of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, a n y party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate c o u rt level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S.
1208 (1984 ).1
Objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were
tim e ly filed on November 2, 2009. A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report a c c u r a te ly summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate ju d g e 's report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, defendants' Motion for Summary J u d g m e n t as to plaintiff's claims under § 1983 is GRANTED, plaintiff's Motion for S u m m a ry Judgment is DENIED, and remaining state law claims are REMANDED to S ta te court. A N D IT IS SO ORDERED.
David C. Norton C h ie f United States District Judge C h a rle s to n , South Carolina N o v e m b e r 5, 2009
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
T h e parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by R u le s 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.
1
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?