From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mozingo v. Strickland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sep 1, 2015
C/A No.: 1:15-cv-1264 DCN SVH (D.S.C. Sep. 1, 2015)

Opinion

C/A No.: 1:15-cv-1264 DCN SVH

09-01-2015

Brandon Mozingo, Plaintiff, v. Andy Strickland; Jodie Taylor; Matthew Walker; David Mathews; and Colleton County Sheriff's Department, Defendants.


ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to defendants Matthew Walker, David Matthews and Colleton County Sheriff's Department.

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.

In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice must be 'sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report. --------

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 complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to defendants CCSD, Matthews, and Walker.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge
September 1, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

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.


Summaries of

Mozingo v. Strickland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sep 1, 2015
C/A No.: 1:15-cv-1264 DCN SVH (D.S.C. Sep. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Mozingo v. Strickland

Case Details

Full title:Brandon Mozingo, Plaintiff, v. Andy Strickland; Jodie Taylor; Matthew…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Sep 1, 2015

Citations

C/A No.: 1:15-cv-1264 DCN SVH (D.S.C. Sep. 1, 2015)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Pelletier

In fact, this court has previously found as much on multiple occasions, explicitly stating “the Sheriff's…