Sanders v. Magistrate Court Sumter
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RICKY D. SANDERS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MAGISTRATE COURT OF SUMTER, care of Magistrate Tindal; SUMTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, care of Chief Patty Patterson; JUDGE R. GRAY, Sumter Family Court; SUMTER FAMILY COURT, care of Mr. Smith, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:06-cv-02299-MBS)
April 19, 2007
April 23, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky D. Sanders, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ricky D. Sanders, Sr. 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 Sanders 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, Sanders 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). Sanders 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?