From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dawson v. Warden Larry Cartledge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 27, 2015
C/A No. 4:14-cv-3259 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2015)

Opinion

C/A No. 4:14-cv-3259 DCN

08-27-2015

William Douglas Dawson, Plaintiff, v. Warden Larry Cartledge and Associate Warden Florence Mauney, in their individual capacities, Defendants.


ORDER

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and this case dismissed in its entirety.

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 timely filed by plaintiff on August 24, 2015.

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, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

David C. Norton

United States District Judge
August 27, 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

Dawson v. Warden Larry Cartledge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 27, 2015
C/A No. 4:14-cv-3259 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2015)
Case details for

Dawson v. Warden Larry Cartledge

Case Details

Full title:William Douglas Dawson, Plaintiff, v. Warden Larry Cartledge and Associate…

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

Date published: Aug 27, 2015

Citations

C/A No. 4:14-cv-3259 DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 27, 2015)

Citing Cases

Kinard v. McCall

, minimal due process is required.” Dawson v. Cartledge, No. 4:14-cv-3259-DCN, 2015 WL 5092617, at *4…

Green v. Stephen

Under the principles announced by the Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), “when an…