Lawrence Paulin, Jr. v. Ray Nash

Filing 920090729

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6473 LAWRENCE CORNELIUS PAULIN, JR., a/k/a Lawrence C Paulin, Plaintiff Appellant, v. RAY NASH, Sheriff, Defendant Appellee. No. 09-6474 LAWRENCE CORNELIUS PAULIN, JR., Plaintiff Appellant, v. FRANKLIN SMITH, former Chief Jailer, Defendant Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:07-cv-03753-GRA; 6:08-cv-00067-GRA) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Cornelius Paulin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William J. Thrower, STUCKEY LAW OFFICES, PA, Charleston, South Carolina; for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Lawrence Cornelius Paulin, Jr., appeals the district court's orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) actions. the cases to a magistrate The The district court referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. judge, 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). magistrate judge recommended granting Defendants' summary judgment motions in the respective actions, and advised Paulin that failure to file timely and specific objections to the recommendations could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendations. Despite this warning, and despite receiving extensions of time to file his objections, Paulin failed to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations. 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 v. warned of the 766 consequences F.2d 841, of noncompliance. Wright Collins, 845-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985). Paulin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections affirm the after receiving court's proper notice. Paulin Accordingly, v. Nash, we No. district orders. 6:07-cv-03753-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009); Paulin v. Smith, No. 6:08-cv-00067-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 18, 2009). 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?