Jerry Canzater v. Kenneth Scott

Filing 920100127

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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