David Washington v. Daryl Burns

Filing 920081125

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1924 DAVID J. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARYL L. BURNS, Marion County Magistrate; DIANE SCOTT; JUDGE BRISTOW; SHERIFF MARK RICHARDSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00316-RBH) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David J. Washington 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 Washington 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, Washington failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a judge's recommendation necessary preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Cir. 1985); see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Washington has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th See United Cir. 2007). We Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. deny Washington's motion for recusal, finding it meritless. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would 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?