United States District Court, D. South Carolina
January 6, 2015
Belay Reddick, Plaintiff,
Pamela Justice; Mary M. Mitchell; J. Hollett; Joseph Neal; Oscar Acosta; Wanda Harris; Roy Lathrop; Warren C. Holland; Lee Hamar; S. Taylor; K. Johnson; M. Cruz; S. Langford; B. Kemp; R. Celaya; D. Colon; D. Mercado; J. Simmons; E. RayBurn; T. Miller; R. Kelso; S. Lathrop; T. Talplacido; D. Ayotte; M. Walker; D. Barbareno; E. McLellan; T. Graves; J. Stivers; M. Strong; M. Moore; D. Franks; F. Hill; and F. Brockington, Defendants.
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motion to be dismissed, defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment be granted, such that Count One is dismissed and summary judgment is awarded to defendants on Counts Two and Three.
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 December 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, and plaintiff's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is GRANTED, such that Count One is DISMISSED and summary judgment is awarded to defendants for Counts Two and Three.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.