Wood v. A.B.L. Food Services et al
ORDER RULING ON 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is hereby ordered that the within case is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and services of process. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 06/06/2017. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Joshua E. Wood,
A.B.L. Food Services, Cherokee County
) C.A. #4:17-1137-PMD
The above-captioned case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation
that the case be 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). 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
case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby
ordered that the within case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and
services of process.
ORDERED, that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted as the order
of this Court, and
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 6, 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?