Gary Waiters v. Dr. Cro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-02686-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998596912]. Mailed to: Waiters. [11-6166]

Appeal: 11-6166

Document: 12

Date Filed: 05/24/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6166

GARY WAITERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. CROSS; MR. BENJAMIN; MRS. SPIKE; MR.
QUMBLEY, official and individual capacities,

MARSHALL;

MR.

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-02686-JMC)

Submitted:

May 19, 2011

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Decided:

Judge,

and

AGEE

and

May 24, 2011

KEENAN,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Waiters, Appellant Pro Se.
Marshall Hodges Waldron, Jr.,
GRIFFITH & SADLER, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6166

Document: 12

Date Filed: 05/24/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Gary

Waiters

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
Waiters that failure to timely file specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see

also

Thomas

v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

Waiters has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2