Theodore Wagner v. Monica Hampton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-02406-GRA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999498226].. [14-1876]

Appeal: 14-1876

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1876

THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER MONICA HAMPTON, all in their Individual and Official
Capacity; OFFICER RUTH DAUGHERTY, all in their Individual
and Official Capacity; OFFICER DONALD SIMMONS, all in their
Individual and Official Capacity; LA TOSHIA SPEARING, all in
their
Individual
and
Official
Capacity;
PAYCOMPUTERMONITORING.COM, all in their Individual and
Official Capacity,
Defendants – Appellees,
NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION TRAINING CENTER,
Movant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cv-02406-GRA)

Submitted:

December 18, 2014

Decided:

December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Thomas Wagner, Appellant
Bowens, Assistant United States

Pro Se.
Attorney,

Barbara Murcier
Columbia, South

Appeal: 14-1876

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Carolina; Jenna Kiziah McGee, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN,
LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; John Francis Kuppens, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1876

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Theodore

Thomas

Wagner

appeals

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
The

district

court

referred

this

case

to

a

magistrate

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

judge

The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Wagner that
failure

to

timely

file

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.

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).

Wagner

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific
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

3