Quintin Littlejohn v. Mummar Qaddifi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-01122-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998395650] [10-1603]

Quintin Littlejohn v. Mummar Qaddifi

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1603 Document: 6

Date Filed: 08/05/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1603 QUINTIN LITTLEJOHN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MUMMAR AL QADDIFI, leader of Libya, North Africa, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (7:10-cv-01122-RBH) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quintin Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1603 Document: 6

Date Filed: 08/05/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Quintin Littlejohn seeks to appeal the district

court's order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge recommended that failure that to relief file be denied and

advised

Littlejohn

specific

timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 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 has

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, review 474 by U.S. 140 (1985). to file

Littlejohn

failing

specific objections after receiving proper notice. we dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly,

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. DISMISSED

2