James Williams v. Michael Studivent

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00414-TDS-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court. [998918348]. Mailed to: Michael Studivent & James Williams. [12-1755]

Appeal: 12-1755

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/17/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1755

JAMES A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL STUDIVENT, Official Capacity; DEBORAH LANKFORD,
Individual
and
Official
Capacity;
SAMUEL
LANKFORD,
Individual and Official Capacity; LANKFORD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, Official Capacity; TOMMY STEVENS, Individual and
Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00414-TDS-LPA)

Submitted:

August 13, 2012

Decided:

August 17, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Studivent, BEE AND
JAY MOTORS, Greensboro, North Carolina; Sarah Helen Roane,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greensboro, North
Carolina; William L. Hill, James Demarest Secor, III, FRAZIER
HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1755

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/17/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James A. Williams 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. 2012).

The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Williams

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

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

Williams
objections

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see

has

been

also

waived

after

Thomas

v.

receiving

474

review

appellate

Arn,

by

proper

U.S.

140

failing

notice.

(1985).
to

Accordingly,

file
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