Richardson v. US

Filing 920060907

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6668 CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00749-RBH) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Carolina, for Appellees. Marvin Jennings Columbia, South Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Curtis Dale Richardson appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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 Richardson 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, Richardson 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). Richardson 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?