Jerome Hart v. Piedmont Medical

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:13-cv-00261-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999206607]. Mailed to: Jerome Hart. [13-6529]

Appeal: 13-6529

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6529

JEROME HART, a/k/a Jerome V. Hart, a/k/a Jerome Vernard
Hart,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PIEDMONT MEDICAL,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:13-cv-00261-JFA)

Submitted:

September 17, 2013

Decided:

October 2, 2013

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Hart, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6529

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jerome Hart 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.

2013).

The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Hart

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.

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).

Hart

has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2