Leon Ratliff v. Guilford County Court

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00760-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999512969]. Mailed to: Ratliff. [14-2082]

Appeal: 14-2082

Doc: 8

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2082

LEON RATLIFF,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
GUILFORD COUNTY COURT; JAQUELINE VANN;
CLERK OF COURT; JUDGE JAN H. SAMET,

JOHNATHAN

KEELER;

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00760-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

January 15, 2015

Decided:

January 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Ratliff, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2082

Doc: 8

Filed: 01/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Leon
dismissing

Ratliff

his

appeals

complaint

§ 1915(e)(2) (2012).

as

the

district

frivolous

court’s

pursuant

to

order

28

U.S.C.

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

relief

be

denied

and

advised Ratliff 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.
Cir.

1985);

Ratliff

objections

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see

has

been

also

waived

after

Thomas

v.

appellate

receiving

Arn,

474

review

by

proper

U.S.

140

failing

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