Caldwell v. Town of Chapel Hill , 10 F. App'x 77 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-2339
    EMMETT W. CALDWELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL; MICHAEL BURGESS, Police
    Officer; JOHN DOE, I, Police Officer; JOHN
    DOE, II, Police Officer; JANET RENO; JOHN DOE,
    III, Police Officer; OFFICER SMITH; MARTIN
    DAVID; ANDRELL BAGLEY,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
    trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Dis-
    trict Judge. (CA-00-716-1)
    Submitted:   March 22, 2001                 Decided:   March 27, 2001
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Emmett W. Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Emmett W. Caldwell appeals the district court’s order dismiss-
    ing his 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
     (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Caldwell’s
    case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (1994).   The magistrate judge recommended that re-
    lief be denied and advised Caldwell that failure to file timely
    objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of
    a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this
    warning, Caldwell failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
    recommendation.
    The timely filing of 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
    that failure to object will waive appellate review.      Wright v.
    Collins, 
    766 F.2d 841
    , 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see Thomas v. Arn,
    
    474 U.S. 140
     (1985). Caldwell has waived appellate review by fail-
    ing 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 adequate-
    ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-2339

Citation Numbers: 10 F. App'x 77

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 3/27/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023