Anthony Parker v. Schaeffler Group USA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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