United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the within action be dismissed. Because plaintiff is pro se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.
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). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report.
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Finding no error in the report, this court adopts the report and recommendation and incorporates it into this order.
For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby ordered that the within action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for ...