Joseph Macon v. GEICO Insurance

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-00007-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998900036]. Mailed to: Joseph Macon. [12-1708]

Appeal: 12-1708

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1708

JOSEPH E. MACON, a/k/a Joe E. Macon,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEICO INSURANCE; SCDMV,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-00007-TMC)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph E. Macon, Appellant Pro Se. David L. Moore, Jr., NEXSEN
PRUET, Greenville, South Carolina; Russell W. Harter, Jr.,
CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1708

Doc: 16

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Joseph E. Macon seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

his

civil

action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
this

case

to

a

magistrate

for

failure

to

prosecute

The district court referred

judge

pursuant

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012).

to

28

U.S.C.A.

The magistrate judge

recommended that the action be dismissed and advised Macon 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.

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).

Macon

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