Michael Rivera v. Inferior Court of California


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [1000097484-2]; denying Motion for other relief [1000131643-2] Originating case number: 2:16-cv-09546 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000160144]. Mailed to: Michael Alexander Rivera CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON P. O. Box 5005 Calipatria, CA 92233-5005. [17-6343]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6343 Doc: 51 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6343 MICHAEL ALEXANDER RIVERA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INFERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, Alhambra Courthouse et al, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:16-cv-09546) Submitted: August 29, 2017 Decided: September 22, 2017 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Alexander Rivera, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6343 Doc: 51 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Alexander Rivera appeals the district court’s order 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 district court dismiss Rivera’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and advised Rivera 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). Rivera failed to file objections after receiving proper notice. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Rivera’s motions for transcript at government expense and for appointment of a process server. 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 * Although Rivera submitted two filings within the designated time period, none of the pleadings challenged the basis for the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.”). 2

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?