Samuel Smith v. Aiken County Government ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1546
    SAMUEL LEROY SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    AIKEN COUNTY GOVERNMENT; CLAY KILLIAN, County Administrator;
    COUNTY COUNCIL; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00779-HMH)
    Submitted: September 18, 2018                               Decided: September 20, 2018
    Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Samuel Leroy Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Samuel Leroy Smith filed a personal injury action and the district court referred
    the matter to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The
    magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction and advised Smith that failure to file timely, specific objections to the
    recommendation could result in waiver of appellate review of a district court order based
    on the recommendation. Despite this warning, Smith failed to file specific objections.
    The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed Smith’s complaint for lack
    of jurisdiction. Smith appeals.
    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). Smith
    has waived appellate review by failing 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 adequately presented in the
    materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1546

Filed Date: 9/20/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021