Jerry Canzater v. Kenneth Scott

Filing 920100127

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7351 JERRY ALEXANDER CANZATER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KENNETH SCOTT, Sergeant; HUDSON; OFFICER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) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 magistrate recommended that complaint dismissed with prejudice and advised Canzater that failure to file timely and specific objections of a to this recommendation court order could waive the appellate review district based upon recommendation. 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 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); 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 orders Canzater 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 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?