Calvin Gaddy v. South Carolina Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-02772-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999902327]. Mailed to: Calvin Gaddy. [16-6383]

Appeal: 16-6383

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6383

CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL;
WARDEN
JOSEPH
MCFADDEN;
ASSOCIATE
WARDEN
BLACKWELL, All of Under Color of State Laws,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:15-cv-02772-JFA)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 2, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6383

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Calvin

Lyndale

Gaddy

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.

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

(2012).

The

magistrate

judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Gaddy that failure
to file timely, specific 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).

Gaddy has waived appellate review

by failing to file specific 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