Tony DeLoach v. South Carolina Department of C
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TONY DELOACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BERNARD DAVID TARTARSKY; MS. HILL, IGC; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Defendants - Appellees. MCKIE;
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:08-cv-03113-HMH)
November 13, 2009
December 3, 2009
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony DeLoach, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Tony DeLoach appeals the district court's order The
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) relief be (2006). denied and The magistrate DeLoach to judge that this
recommended failure to
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. file Despite this warning, to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
noncompliance. Cir. 1985); see
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
DeLoach has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials Accordingly,
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?