Charles Penland, Sr. v. The Honorable Judge Couch
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES W. PENLAND, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE HONORABLE JUDGE COUCH; LARRY W. PROPES, Clerk of Court Columbia; KENNETH REINSTAFF, Clerk of Court Spartanburg County South Carolina; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (7:08-cv-03104-HMH)
February 26, 2009
March 9, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles W. Penland, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Charles W. Penland, Sr., appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) civil rights complaint. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Penland that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Although Penland filed a
response to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he did not specifically object to the dispositive portions of the
magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22
(4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Penland has waived appellate review by failing to 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
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?