United States District Court, D. South Carolina
September 29, 2014
Don Vincent Simmons, Petitioner,
Warden, FCI Estill, Respondent.
PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge.
The above-captioned case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Petition be dismissed. Because petitioner is pro se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.
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). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report.
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby ordered that the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed without prejudice.
ORDERED, that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted as the order of this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.