From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boozer v. Beaufort

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Apr 9, 2015
C/A No.: 2:14-cv-3312 DCN JDA (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2015)

Opinion

C/A No.: 2:14-cv-3312 DCN JDA

04-09-2015

James Boozer, Plaintiff, v. MCAS Beaufort, d/b/a CPM Federal Credit Union, Defendant.


ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff's fourth cause of action 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), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

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 defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff's fourth cause of action is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge
April 9, 2015
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.


Summaries of

Boozer v. Beaufort

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Apr 9, 2015
C/A No.: 2:14-cv-3312 DCN JDA (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Boozer v. Beaufort

Case Details

Full title:James Boozer, Plaintiff, v. MCAS Beaufort, d/b/a CPM Federal Credit Union…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Date published: Apr 9, 2015

Citations

C/A No.: 2:14-cv-3312 DCN JDA (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2015)

Citing Cases

Throckmorton v. Summerville Police Dep't

Said differently, Plaintiff was terminated for complaining to Defendants about their alleged violation of the…

Strong v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist.

n the right to the employment itself.” Bauer v. Summey, 568 F.Supp.3d 573, 602 (D.S.C. 2021) (finding 42…