ORDER

DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, in part, and that plaintiff's federal constitutional claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed without prejudice, and this case be remanded to state court for disposition of any remaining state law causes of action.

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 Objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were timely filed by plaintiff on February 18, 2015.

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, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, in part, and plaintiff's federal constitutional claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be remanded to state court for disposition of any remaining state law causes of action.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.