TRUE v. SEPPALA, 2:13-cv-2228 DCN WWD. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20140910b90
Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge. The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation (ECF No. 47) that defendant Joshua Seppala be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 cont
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge. The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation (ECF No. 47) that defendant Joshua Seppala be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 conta..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation (ECF No. 47) that defendant Joshua Seppala be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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 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, and defendant Joshua Seppala is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. 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.
Source: Leagle
