John Baccus v. Sargeant Wilson

Filing 920090629

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6032 JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SARGEANT WILSON; LIEUTENANT STEWART; MAJOR MONTEL; SERGEANT JONES; STAN BURTT, Warden; EMRHEIN, JR.; BLOWE; MS. JENKINS; WILLIAMS; WALKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (9:08-cv-00326-DCN) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se. Walker Heinitsh Willcox, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Roosevelt Baccus 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 Baccus 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, Baccus failed to object 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 Baccus 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 deny Baccus's motions for appointment of counsel and summary disposition. 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?