Summary
finding that plaintiff had "presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that his infection presented a substantial risk to his health or safety," noting that "[s]cabies is a non-life threatening skin condition"
Summary of this case from Castillo v. Solano Cnty. JailOpinion
Civil Action No. 0:08-1338-SB.
March 15, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the pro se Plaintiff's complaint, which was 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 February 18, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court grant the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Entry 42). Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of the right to file specific, written objections to the R R within 14 days of the date of service of the R R. To date, no objections have been filed.
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, there are no portions of the R R to which the Court must conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, after review, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R as the Order of this Court, and it is
ORDERED that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Entry 42) is granted.