United States District Court, D. South Carolina
September 19, 2014
Charles Edward Thomas, Plaintiff,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Medical Division, Financial Division; Jon Ozmint; Prison Director Former, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. It was further recommended that the motion for a temporary restraining order be denied.
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 by plaintiff on September 3, 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 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process, and the motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.