Irby v. Wallace
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JOHN IRBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALAN WALLACE, D.E.A. Officer; J. P. LOWDERMILK, Tactical Officer; W. P. GRAVES, Vice Narcotics Agent, Defendants - Appellees, and WALTER C. HOLTON, JR., U.S. Attorney, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:00-cv-00540)
Submitted: June 15, 2007
June 20, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William John Irby, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; Richard Thompson Wright, Joseph P. Gram, HILL, EVANS, DUNCAN, JORDAN & DAVIS, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: William John Irby appeals the district court's order denying relief on his civil action, which alleged that Drug
Enforcement Administration Officer Wallace and two state police officers unlawfully seized personal property from Irby's residence and a storage facility subsequent to his arrest on drug charges. 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 Irby 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, Irby failed to file specific objections 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). Although Irby filed a general, two-sentence
objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation, we find that he waived appellate review by failing to file any specific objections after receiving proper notice. n.3 (4th Cir. 2003). district court. - 2 See Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
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
- 3 -
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?