Payne v. Weissglass et al
ORDER granting 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 42 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 57 Motion for TRO; affirming 58 Report and Recommendation.; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; finding as moot 29 Motion make dental floss pics available and to transport inmates; finding as moot 29 Motion for TRO Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 1/7/2013.(eric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Harvie Payne,
CCOH, Chas. Co., Dr. Barry Loweissglass,
C/A No. 6:12-cv-1929 DCN
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant Charleston County’s motion to dismiss and defendants Carolina Center
Occupational Health and Dr. Barry L. Weissglass’ motions for summary judgment be granted.
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 No objections
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
have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
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, defendant Charleston County’s motion to dismiss (doc #25)
is GRANTED, defendant Dr. Barry L. Weissglass’ motion for summary judgment (doc #41) is
GRANTED, and defendant Carolina Center for Occupational Heath’s motion for summary
judgment (doc #42) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining motions are deemed MOOT.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
January 7, 2013
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.
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?