Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:07-793-SB.
February 21, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's pro se complaint, which alleges violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By local rule, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On January 30, 2008, Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey issued a report and recommendation ("R R") analyzing the Plaintiff's complaint and recommending that the Court grant the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and deny the Plaintiff's motion for a restraining order. Attached to the R R was a notice advising the Plaintiff of the right to file specific, written objections to the R R within 10 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, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's R R as the Order of this Court, and it is ORDERED that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #18) is granted, and the Plaintiff's motion for a restraining order (Doc. #20) is denied.