James Mayer v. William Brandstetter, II et al

Filing 920091201

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2084

JAMES PAUL MAYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. BRANDSTETTER, II; MARIAN M. HOLLERAN; JOHN HOLLERAN; RICHARD GEORGE MAYER; EILEEN WAGNER; CAROL SCHARER; DONALD SCHARER; LAURA DALY; GAIL ROBERTSON; JESSICA HUTCHISON; LAWRENCE J. O'TOOLE, Judge; ANGELEA ALLEN MITAS; MARK G. WEITZMAN; OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; REGIS J. SCHNIPPERT, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00123-BO)

Submitted:

November 19, 2009

Decided:

December 1, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Paul Mayer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James Paul Mayer appeals the district court's order denying relief on his civil 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 Mayer that failure to file timely and specific objections of a to this recommendation court order Mayer could waive the file

appellate

review

district this

based failed

upon to

recommendation.

Despite

warning,

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.

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Mayer

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