Quintin Littlejohn v. Barack Obama

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cv-03154-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999308653]. Mailed to: Littlejohn. [14-1023]

Appeal: 14-1023

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1023

QUINTIN M. LITTLEJOHN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States of America,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (6:13-cv-03154-JMC)

Submitted:

February 27, 2014

Decided:

March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quintin Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1023

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Quintin Littlejohn appeals the district court’s order
dismissing

his

civil

service of process.

action

without

prejudice

and

without

The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed
and advised Littlejohn that failure to file specific, 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);

Littlejohn

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see
has

been

also
waived

Thomas

v.

appellate

Arn,

474

review

U.S.

by

140

failing

specific objections after receiving proper notice.

(1985).
to

file

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