Filed: Mar. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON , District Judge . The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motions for summary judgment be denied, defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted with respect to plaintiff's federal claims and those claims be dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff's remaining state law causes of actions be dismissed without prejudice which will allow plaintiff to refile his state law claims in state court if he c
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON , District Judge . The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motions for summary judgment be denied, defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted with respect to plaintiff's federal claims and those claims be dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff's remaining state law causes of actions be dismissed without prejudice which will allow plaintiff to refile his state law claims in state court if he ch..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motions for summary judgment be denied, defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted with respect to plaintiff's federal claims and those claims be dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff's remaining state law causes of actions be dismissed without prejudice which will allow plaintiff to refile his state law claims in state court if he chooses to do so.
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, plaintiff's motions for summary judgment are DENIED, and defendants' motions for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's federal claims are GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's remaining state law causes of actions are DISMISSED without prejudice, thereby allowing plaintiff to refile his state law claims in state court, if he chooses to do so.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
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.
