STEARNS v. LEWIS

No. C.A. #8:17-0531-PMD.

Seth Aaron Stearns, Plaintiff, v. Warden Scott Lewis, Defendant.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Seth Aaron Stearns, Petitioner, Pro Se.

Warden Scott Lewis, Respondent, represented by Caroline M. Scrantom , SC Attorney General's Office & Donald John Zelenka , SC Attorney General's Office.


ORDER

PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the within action be dismissed. Because plaintiff is pro se, this matter was referred to the magistrate judge.1

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).2 No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report.

A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Finding no error in the report, this court adopts the report and recommendation and incorporates it into this order.

For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby ordered that the within action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with this court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters and submit findings and recommendations to this Court.
2. 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 fourteen (14) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases