Walter Simmons v. Randy Shelton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999647211-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00566-WO-JLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680343]. Mailed to: Walter Simmons, Kenneth Rotenstreich. [15-1754]

Appeal: 15-1754

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1754

WALTER COLUMBUS SIMMONS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LT. RANDY
JESSICA,

SHELTON;

NURSE

MARILYN;

NURSE

APRIL;

NURSE

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00566-WO-JLW)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Columbus Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.
Camilla Frances
DeBoard, Kenneth Bruce Rotenstreich, TEAGUE, ROTENSTREICH,
STANALAND, FOX & HOLT, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina;
Thomas John Ludlam, NEXSEN PRUET, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1754

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Walter

Columbus

Simmons

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for
failure to state a claim.
to

a

magistrate

(2012).

judge

The district court referred this case
pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

The magistrate judge recommended that the action be

dismissed

and

advised

Simmons

that

failure

to

file

timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v.

Arn,

review
notice.

474
by

U.S.

failing

140
to

(1985).
file

Simmons

objections

has

after

waived

appellate

receiving

proper

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis

and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2