United States District Court, District of South Carolina
January 30, 2015
John Roosevelt Baccus, a/k/a John Baccus, Plaintiff,
Brian Sterling; Tamara Conwell; Nancy C. Merchant; S. Duffy; T. Landreth; Larry Cartledge; Florence Mauney; Steven S. Claytor; C. Early; John Does; Jane Does; Nikki R. Haley; Hugh Leatherman; and Daniel J. Crooks, III, Defendants.
David C. Norton United States District Judge
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure of plaintiff to comply with this court’s order or to properly prosecute his claims.
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). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
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 this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure of plaintiff to comply with this court’s order or to properly prosecute his claims.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.