Charles E. McClinton v. Walden University

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999330631-2]. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00942-MBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999415426]. Mailed to: Charles McClinton. [14-1247]

Appeal: 14-1247

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/14/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1247

CHARLES EDWARD MCCLINTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WALDEN UNIVERSITY;
BARKLEY,

GREGORY

HICKMAN;

JOANN

REGAN;

WILLIAM

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00942-MBS)

Submitted:

July 24, 2014

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

August 14, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Se.

Mark

Edwin

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Edward McClinton, Appellant Pro
Grantham, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1247

Doc: 19

Filed: 08/14/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward McClinton appeals the district court’s
order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint.

The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
The

magistrate

advised

judge

McClinton

recommended

that

failure

that

relief

to

timely

be

denied

file

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

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

McClinton

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

by

U.S.

140

failing

specific objections after receiving proper notice.

(1985).
to

file

Accordingly,

we deny Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal and 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