Nathaniel Riley, II v. Mark Bourdon

Filing 920090727

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1144 NATHANIEL C. RILEY, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARK BOURDON; SWACKY, CHARLES M. CONDON; HENRY MCMASTER; DAVID Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:08-cv-03899-HMH) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel C. Riley, II, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel C. Riley, II, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) 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 Riley that failure to file specific, timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order Riley based failed upon to the file recommendation. specific Despite to this the warning, objections 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. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Riley Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 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 before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would 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?