Jacob Baker v. Registration and Election

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999055648-2] Originating case number: 6:12-cv-03221-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999077812]. Mailed to: Jacob Baker. [13-1121]

Appeal: 13-1121

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1121

JACOB BAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REGISTRATION AND ELECTION OFFICE; SHERIFF STEVE LOFTIS;
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; BARACK OBAMA, Democratic Party;
JOE BIDEN; OPRAH WINFREY; MARK STANFORD; PRINCE CHARLES,
London the British; FRANCE THE COUNTRY; SADDIE HUSSAN; MITT
ROMNEY, Republican Party; GARY JOHNSON, Libertarian Party;
VIRGIL GOODE, Constitution Party; JILL STEIN, Green Party;
MICHAEL A. BAKER; GREENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; GEORGE W.
BUSH,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:12-cv-03221-TMC)

Submitted:

March 28, 2013

Decided:

April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob Baker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1121

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jacob
accepting

the

dismissing

Baker

appeals

recommendation

without

prejudice

the

district

of

the

his

42

court’s

magistrate
U.S.C.

judge

§ 1983

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006).

order
and

(2006)

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
Baker that failure to file timely and 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

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

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

waived

of

appellate

review

by

failing

to

file

Baker

specific

objections after receiving proper notice.
We
dispense

deny

with

contentions

Baker’s

oral

are

motion

argument

adequately

for

default

because
presented

2

the
in

judgment.

facts
the

and

We
legal

materials

Appeal: 13-1121

before

Doc: 8

this

Filed: 04/02/2013

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3