Anthony Parker v. Schaeffler Group USA


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:15-cv-00521-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000026531]. Mailed to: Anthony Parker Apt B 10410 Wheatside Drive Charlotte, NC 28262. [16-2303]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2303 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2303 ANTHONY PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:15-cv-00521-DCN) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Dudley Helms, Christopher Ray Thomas, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2303 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Parker appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 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 the complaint be dismissed and advised Parker 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). file timely Parker has waived appellate review by failing to 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?