Rufus Anderson v. Greenville Hospital System

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:15-cv-02556-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999722177]. Mailed to: Rufus Anderson. [15-2103]

Appeal: 15-2103

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2103

RUFUS JULIUS CORNELIUS ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
PROBATION AND PAROLE BOARD,

OF
OF

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(6:15-cv-02556-MGL)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 21, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus J. C. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2103

Doc: 15

Filed: 12/21/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rufus

Julius

Cornelius

Anderson

appeals

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his employment discrimination
complaint.

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 Anderson 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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
review

by

failing

proper

notice.

to

timely

Accordingly,

Anderson has waived appellate
file
we

objections
affirm

the

after

receiving

judgment

of

the

district court.
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.
AFFIRMED

2