Filed: Sep. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY , District Judge . This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed. Because plaintiff is proceeding 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 r
Summary: ORDER PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY , District Judge . This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed. Because plaintiff is proceeding 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 re..
More
ORDER
PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed. Because plaintiff is proceeding 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 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. Moreover, the report and recommendation sent to plaintiff was returned with a notation from the U.S. Postal Service stating "RETURN TO SENDER — NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED — UNABLE TO FORWARD," and no change of address had been given as directed by the court.3
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law, therefore, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is hereby adopted as the order of this Court. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to FRCP 41(b).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
