Larry James Tyler v. Wayne Byrd


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:16-cv-00400-MGL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000124478]. Mailed to: Larry James Tyler DARLINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 2349 Rogers Road Darlington, SC 29532-0000. [17-6325]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6325 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6325 LARRY JAMES TYLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAYNE BYRD, Defendant - Appellee, and PAUL M. BURCH; JAMES BOGLE; J. RICHARD JONES, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:16-cv-00400-MGL) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 25, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Appeal: 17-6325 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-6325 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/25/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his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 Tyler 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). Tyler 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 3

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?