United States District Court, District of South Carolina
January 29, 2015
Anthony Fred Martin, Plaintiff,
William Byars, and Donald Lane, Defendants.
David C. Norton United States District Judge
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and this case be dismissed in its entirety.
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 January 26, 2015.
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, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and this case is hereby DISMISSED.
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