Koon v. Lynch et al

Filing 21

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, )

Download PDF
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, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch; Chief ) Justice Jean Toal; and S.C. Attorney General) Alan Wilson, all in their official capacities, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) C/A No. 4:15-cv2349 DCN ORDER 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 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?