James Barnett, Jr. v. Samuel Page ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6566
    JAMES ANTHONY BARNETT, JR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SHERIFF SAMUEL W. PAGE; NURSE JENNY THOMAS,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01064-LCB-JLW)
    Submitted: August 16, 2018                                        Decided: August 21, 2018
    Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Anthony Barnett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Torin L. Fury, William L. Hill, FRAZIER
    HILL & FURY, RLLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Jay C. Salsman, HARRIS, CREECH,
    WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Anthony Barnett, Jr., appeals the district court’s order and judgment
    dismissing his civil rights 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 Barnett 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). Barnett
    has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6566

Filed Date: 8/21/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/21/2018