John Miller v. Rock Hill City Police Departme

Filing 920091007

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6863 JOHN ALAN MILLER, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ROCK HILL CITY POLICE Enforcement Center,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?