From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Charleston County School District

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Sep 5, 2006
C/A No. 2:06-2177-DCN-RSC (D.S.C. Sep. 5, 2006)

Summary

finding that plaintiff was not entitled to a "right-to-sue" letter which deprived the district court of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Davis v. Potter

Opinion

C/A No. 2:06-2177-DCN-RSC.

September 5, 2006


ORDER


The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that this case be summarily 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 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). Objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were filed on September 1, 2006.

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 theconsequences 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 this case is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Charleston County School District

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Sep 5, 2006
C/A No. 2:06-2177-DCN-RSC (D.S.C. Sep. 5, 2006)

finding that plaintiff was not entitled to a "right-to-sue" letter which deprived the district court of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Davis v. Potter
Case details for

Smith v. Charleston County School District

Case Details

Full title:Wesley Edward Smith, III, Plaintiff, v. Charleston County School District…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Sep 5, 2006

Citations

C/A No. 2:06-2177-DCN-RSC (D.S.C. Sep. 5, 2006)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Charleston

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Charleston County School Dist.,…

Davis v. Potter

This Court agrees with the Defendant that a federal court can assume jurisdiction over a Title VII claim only…