Civil Action No. 8:09-1717-SB.
December 8, 2009
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By local rule, the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On November 4, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of his right to file specific, written objections to the R R within ten days of the date of service of the R R. The Court mailed a copy of the R R to the Plaintiff, but on November 16, 2009, the Court received the copy returned and marked as undeliverable/gone. On November 16, 2009, however, the Court also received an address update from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court mailed a copy of the R R to the Plaintiff's new address. Despite this second mailing, no objections have been filed to date.
Absent timely objection from a dissatisfied party, a district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, a Magistrate Judge's factual or legal conclusions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); Wells v. Shriner's Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997). Here, because the Plaintiff did not file any specific, written objections, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R R. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R (Entry 11) as the Order of this Court, and it is
ORDERED that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.