Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Harvie Payne, #2098.                                                                           )                                                      C/A No. 6:11-2666 DCN
)
Petitioner,                                                                                           )
)
vs.                                                                                                   )                                                      ORDER
)
Chief Jailer Lucas,                                                                                   )
)
Respondent.                                                                                           )
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommenda-
tion that respondent’s motion for summary judgment 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),
1
cert. denied,                                                                                         467 U.S.  1208  (1984  ).                              Objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
                                                                                                      recommendation were timely filed on October 9, 2012.
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
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  respondent’s  motion  for  summary  judgment  is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to expedite is MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because
petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(b)(2).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
October 12, 2012
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

Download 24653.pdf

South Carolina Law