Emanuel Howard v. Jeradine Child

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-03418-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998976610]. Mailed to: Howard. [12-1589]

Appeal: 12-1589

Doc: 14

Filed: 11/07/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1589

EMANUEL RICHARD HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JERADINE CHILDS, Chief Judge 5th Cir; TIVIS THERLAND, Atty
at Trial; ANNE SPEARS WALSH, 5th Cir Solicitor; WILLIAM
BYARS, JR., Director of SCDC; KELA EVANS THOMAS, Director
Dept PPPS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:11-cv-03418-JFA)

Submitted:

November 2, 2012

Decided:

November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emanuel Richard Howard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1589

Doc: 14

Filed: 11/07/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

Richard

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Emanuel

Howard

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. 2012).
The

magistrate

judge

recommended

that

relief

be

denied

and

advised Howard 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

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

noncompliance.

have

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

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

Howard

has waived appellate review by failing to file 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