Phillips v. State of SC
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LINDSEY PHILLIPS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; YORK COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:05-cv-03561-PMD)
Submitted: August 31, 2006
Decided: September 6, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lindsey Phillips, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Lindsey Phillips, Jr., appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).
The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Phillips that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Phillips failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Phillips has waived appellate review by failing
to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?