Timpson v. Pondexter et al

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is hereby ordered that defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and the Complaint shall be served on all remaining defendants. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 06/19/2017. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jocastarius Timpson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Christopher Pondexter; Joshua Silva; Karl
Von Muitus, and South Carolina
Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

) C.A. No. 5:17-0760-PMD-KDW
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The above-captioned case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation
that defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections be dismissed. Because petitioner is pro
se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.1
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

1

Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., the magistrate judge is authorized to review pretrial matters and submit
findings and recommendations to this Court.

court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).2 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 defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections be summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and the Complaint shall be served on all
remaining defendants.
ORDERED, that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted as the order
of this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 19, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

2

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.
2