Preview:

Hay v. Miynarczyk                                                                                  Doc. 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
KEITHIE L. HAY,                                                                                    )         C/A No. 2:10-3089 DCN
)
Plaintiff,                                                                                         )
)
vs.                                                                                                )         O R D E R
)
DR. FRANCIS A. MLYNARCZYK, M.D.,                                                                   )
)
Defendant.                                                                                         )
)
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommen-
dation that the case be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magis-
trate 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 magis-
trate 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 ).   1 No objections
1
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
Dockets.Justia.com




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 the case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
David C. Norton
Chief United States District Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
January 19, 2011
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.
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.

Download 25246.pdf

South Carolina Law