Kevin Schaap v. Susan Clary

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:16-cv-02778-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000127831]. Mailed to: Kevin Schaap. [17-1232]

Appeal: 17-1232

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1232

KEVIN SCHAAP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN STOKLEY CLARY; SUSAN STOKLEY CLARY, in her official capacity
as clerk of the Supreme Court; SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY;
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:16-cv-02778-CMC)

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Schaap, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1232

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Kevin Schaap appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 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 Schaap 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. See Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Schaap has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections to the
particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge 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