Evans v. Sumter County ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8397
REGINALD D. EVANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUMTER COUNTY, South Carolina; CITY OF SUMTER, SOUTH
CAROLINA; PATTY J. PATTERSON, Chief of Sumter Police; SUMTER
POLICE DEPARTMENT; SUMTER-LEE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:07-cv-02688-JFA-JRM)
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: January 6, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred Johnston Cox, ELLIS,
LAWHORNE & SIMS, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; James M. Davis,
Jr., DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald D. Evans appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The
district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge
recommended that relief be denied and advised Evans 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, Evans failed to object to
the magistrate judge’s 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). Evans
has waived appellate review by failing to timely 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
2