Koon v. Lynch et al
ORDER affirming 12 Report and Recommendation, dismissing complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process; finding as moot 17 Motion to Consolidate Cases; finding as moot 18 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 19 Motion for Recusal. ; denying 19 Motion to Change Venue Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 8/12/2015.(eric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Holland Koon, #227826,
a/k/a Robert Koon, a/k/a Robert H. Koon,
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Chief )
Justice Jean Toal; and S.C. Attorney General)
Alan Wilson, all in their official capacities, )
C/A No. 4:15-cv2349 DCN
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
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
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
recommendation were timely filed by plaintiff on August 5, 2015.
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 complaint is summarily DISMISSED without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to consolidate cases and to amend
complaint (ECF Nos. 17 and 18) are deemed MOOT, and plaintiff’s motion to change venue and
for recusal (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
August 12, 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
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?