United States District Court, D. South Carolina
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this petition be construed as a petition for a writ of coram nobis and this matter and any pending motions be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
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). Objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were timely filed on April 23, 2014.
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, the instant petition is construed to be a petition for a writ of coram nobis, and this matter and all pending motions are hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a ...