Thomas Switzer v. John Thomas , 535 F. App'x 312 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1411
THOMAS L. SWITZER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOHN THOMAS, Sheriff; GORDON CROSEN, Deputy; MIKE ATKINS,
Deputy Captain; BRUCE WRIGHT, Lieutenant Deputy; DONALD
DURROUGHS, Deputy; JASON ALSHIRE, Deputy; DEPUTY LIEUTENANT
KITE, Retired; ANNETTE WEAVER, Jail Nurse; ALL EMPLOYED BY
THE PAGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:12-cv-00056-MFU-JGW)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas L. Switzer, Appellant Pro Se. Wade Travis Anderson, John
Chadwick Johnson, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Switzer appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and imposing a
prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the
reasons stated by the district court. Switzer v. Thomas, No.
5:12-cv-00056-MFU-JGW (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2013).
In addition, we note that Switzer’s informal brief on
appeal raises claims that were not raised in his objections to
the magistrate judge’s report. The district court referred this
case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Switzer 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).
Switzer has waived appellate review of several of his claims by
2
failing to file specific 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3