Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. United States

United States District Court, District of South Carolina

January 30, 2015

Curtis Jerome Brown, Sr., a/k/a Curtis J. Brown, Sr., a/k/a Curtis Jerome Brown, #238979, Petitioner,
v.
United States of America and U.S. Probation Office, Respondents.

ORDER

David C. Norton, United States District Judge

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the case be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

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).[1] Objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation were timely filed on January 27, 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, and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for judgment of nul tiel record is deemed MOOT.

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 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(b)(2).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.