Clayton Tisdale v. South Carolina Highway Patrol

Filing 920090827

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7059 CLAYTON HOWARD TISDALE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; R. D. TREVATHON, Conway, SC Highway 701 N Conway SC 29526, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (0:09-cv-01009-HFF) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Howard Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clayton Howard Tisdale 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 Tisdale that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the to recommendation. object to the Despite this warning, judge's Tisdale failed magistrate 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. Cir. 1985); has see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas appellate v. Arn, 474 by U.S. 140 (1985). to file we Tisdale waived review failing objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, 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

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?