*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Edwin Wright, ) C.A. #2:17-3049-PMD
)
Plaintiff, )
) vs. ) ORDER )
Quicken Loans Inc. and Shariff Holdings, )
LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
)
The above-captioned case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that defendants’ motion to dismiss 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) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). 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). 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. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED , and this case is dismissed.
ORDERED , that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted as the order *2 of this Court, and
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 9, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina
2