Butch Johnson v. Palmetto Citizens Federal

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-01568-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704417]. Mailed to: Butch Johnson. [15-1882]

Appeal: 15-1882

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1882

BUTCH JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PALMETTO CITIZENS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:14-cv-01568-TLW)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Butch Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1882

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Butch Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after a 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, Johnson’s claims alleging breach of
contract and unfair trade practices by Palmetto Citizens Federal
Credit Union.

We affirm.

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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Moreover, we limit our review to

the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief.
Cir. R. 34(b).
court’s

Johnson waived appellate review of the district

dispositive

objections

to

receiving

See 4th

the

proper

holdings

by

magistrate

notice,

failing

judge’s

and

by

to

file

specific

recommendation

failing

to

after

challenge

the

district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
2