John Miller v. Rock Hill City Police Departme

Filing 920091007

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6863

JOHN ALAN MILLER, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. ROCK HILL CITY POLICE Enforcement Center, DEPARTMENT, c-o Rock Hill Law

Defendant ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (2:09-cv-00737-JFA)

Submitted:

September 29, 2009

Decided:

October 7, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Alan Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: John Alan Miller appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. court § 1983 (2006) this civil case rights to a

complaint.

The

district

referred

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Miller that failure to file specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Although Miller filed a

response to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he did not specifically object to the dispositive portions of the

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.

United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22

(4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Miller has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the district court. motions, including Miller's motions for

We deny all pending damages, to impose

sanctions, to compel the release of evidence and documents, for

2

the

appointment

of

counsel,

for

transcripts

at

Government

expense, and for default judgment. 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

3