Angela Doctor v. City of Rock Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-00265-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000054195]. [16-2051]

Appeal: 16-2051

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2051

ANGELA RUTH DOCTOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ROCK
JENKINS,

HILL;

CHRIS

WATTS;

SARAH

BLAIR;

ROBERT

N.

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (0:15-cv-00265-JMC)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

S. Jahue Moore, MOORE TAYLOR LAW FIRM, P.A., West Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David L. Morrison, MORRISON LAW
FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2051

Doc: 31

Filed: 04/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Angela

Ruth

Doctor

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

recommended

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

that

relief

be

(2012).
denied

The
and

magistrate

advised

judge

Doctor

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).

Doctor has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.
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