Frilando v. Johnson et al

Filing 91

ORDER finding as moot 54 Motion supplement documents; finding as moot 57 Motion supplement documents; granting 58 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 76 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 76 Motion for Pro tective Order; finding as moot 78 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 80 Motion supplement documents; affirming 85 Report and Recommendation; finding as moot 87 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 9/25/2014.(eric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
John A. Frilando,

) C/A No. 4:13-cv-2931 DCN
)
Plaintiff,
)
ORDER
)
vs.
)
)
Director Timothy Johnson; Associate
)
Warden Lankford; Unite Manager R. Keys; )
SIS Counselor T. Naylor; Lieutenant J.
)
Stivers; Lieutenant Goodyear; Lieutenant )
F. Hill; Lieutenant Hankerson; Captain E. )
Rayburn; Fredrick Grainger; Counselor
)
Thrasher, and SIS Lieutenant J. Patterson, )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and the case be dismissed in its
entirety.
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

Objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation were timely filed by plaintiff on September 19, 2014.
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, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED,
and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are deemed MOOT.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

David C. Norton
United States District Judge
September 25, 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

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.