Reginald Evans v. Cheryl M. Stanton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-01585-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999948122]. Mailed to: Reginald Evans #123 1200 Broad Street Sumter, SC 29150. [16-1710]

Appeal: 16-1710

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1710

REGINALD EVANS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHERYL M. STANTON, Executive Director of South
Department of Employment and Workforce (DEW),

Carolina

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:16-cv-01585-JFA)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Evans, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1710

Doc: 5

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Reginald Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his
civil complaint.
be

denied

and

The magistrate judge recommended that relief
advised

Evans

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.

United

States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007).
has

waived

objections

appellate
after

review

receiving

by

proper

failing

to

notice.

file

Evans

specific

Accordingly,

we

affirm the 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