Willie M. Godley v. NC Dept of Health et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cv-01071-HFF Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998441228] [10-1728]

Willie M. Godley v. NC Dept of Health et al

Doc. 0

Case: 10-1728 Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/07/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1728 WILLIE M. GODLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:10-cv-01071-HFF) Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 7, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie M. Godley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-1728 Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/07/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Willie M. Godley appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 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 relief be denied and advised Godley that failure to file 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.

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Godley

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. the district court. 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 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

would

process. AFFIRMED

2