Jerry Canzater v. Kenneth Scott
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JERRY ALEXANDER CANZATER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KENNETH SCOTT, Sergeant; HUDSON; OFFICER LIKELY, JEREMY FELDER, Officer; OFFICER
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:08-cv-03481-HMH)
January 19, 2010
January 27, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Alexander Canzater, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jerry Alexander Canzater appeals the district court's orders dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint motion. judge and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
The district court referred this case to a magistrate pursuant judge to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) the (2006). be The
with prejudice and advised Canzater that failure to file timely and specific objections of a to this recommendation court order could waive the
Despite this warning, Canzater failed to timely
object to the magistrate judge's 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).
Canzater has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections affirm both after receiving from proper which notice. Accordingly, appeals. We we deny
Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials
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?