Teresa Miller v. WVDOC


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000115169-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-04225. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000141496]. Mailed to: T. Miller. [17-6463]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6463 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6463 TERESA MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a/k/a WVDOC; COMMISSIONER JIM RUBENSTEIN; WARDEN LAURA LORI NOHE; WARDEN THOMAS; WARDEN JEFF STINNETT, CCC; MRS. SMITH, CCC; MRS. HENDERSON, CCC; CCC; PAUL STUMP, CED pod unit man; SHELBY SEARLS, A&B Pod unit man; LAURA LONG, Counselor; SAMANTHA ROLLINS, Counselor; JENNIFER CAULDWELL, Counselor; JOHN JUDY, Counselor; MS. BAINE; REBBECCA ROUSH, OA-Mailine; ANTHONEY KING, Shift Com.; MRS. EDWARDS, Int. Officer; DR. BRYCON, PSI Med; AVE ROUSH, PSI Med; SUSIE BIRDSONG, Librarian; ROBERTS; MRS. RAY; MRS. M, SI MED, Defendants - Appellees, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA; MR. MEED; MR. MEEK; LAKIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; BIRD SONG, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-04225) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 22, 2017 Appeal: 17-6463 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teresa Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 17-6463 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/22/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Teresa Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 42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 Miller 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). Miller has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 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?