Nathanael Reynolds v. John Bartell, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:15-cv-00695-MGL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999794235]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6153]

Appeal: 16-6153

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6153

NATHANAEL L. REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SHERIFF JOHN H. BARTELL, JR.; INVESTIGATOR KENNEDY; OFFICER
W. JACKSON, #310,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:15-cv-00695-MGL)

Submitted:

April 8, 2016

Decided:

April 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathanael L. Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox,
II, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6153

Doc: 14

Filed: 04/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Nathanael L. Reynolds appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 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

Reynolds

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,

see

766

Thomas v.

F.2d

Arn,

474

841,
U.S.

845-46
140

(4th

Cir.

(1985).

1985);

Reynolds

has

also
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