IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Seabreeze Marina, LLC, ) C/A No.: 2:21-cv-1748 DCN MGB ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER -vs- ) ) Justin VanBogart, in personam; M/Y ) Mascota, M/Y Last Toy, M/Y Pirate’s ) Life, and M/Y Little Bull, their engines, ) bowspirits, anchors, cables, chains, ) rigging, tackle, apparel, sails, furniture and ) all accessories hereunto appertaining and ) belonging to her, in rem, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommenda- tion that defendant Justin VanBogart’s motion to dismiss be denied. It was further recommended that defendant VanBogart’s request to access and remove personal belongings not housed in any arrested vessels be granted. It was further recommended that defendant VanBogart’s request to halt all auctions, sales or removal of vessels be deemed moot. 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.

(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,

(1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to

(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,

(1984).' No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 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 to dismiss is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant’s request to access and remove personal belongings not housed in any arrested vessels is GRANTED, given plaintiff’ s agreement to this request. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant’s request to halt all auctions, sales or removal of vessels is DEEMED MOOT. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. W | David C. Norton United States District Judge October 6, 2021 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.

In Wright v. Collins,

(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.™

. 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.