United States District Court, District of South Carolina
David C. Norton, United States District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 6), filed by defendant Performance Team Freight System, Inc., be granted.
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 March 30, 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 motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED, and defendant Performance Team Freight Systems, Inc. is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
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 ...