Arthur Moseley v. Judge Newman ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7803
ARTHUR R. MOSELEY, a/k/a Shahid Majid,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDGE NEWMAN; ASSISTANT SOLICITOR KIMBERY BARR; ASSISTANT
SOLICITOR SECRETARY LINDA WOODS; PUBLIC DEFENDER M. AMANDA
SHULA; VERDELL BARR, Former Private Counsel; SHARON
STAGGERS, Town Clerk,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:13-cv-01680-GRA)
Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur R. Moseley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur R. Moseley appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint. 1 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 Moseley 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).
Moseley has waived appellate review by failing to file
objections after receiving proper notice. 2 Accordingly, we deny
1
The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is an
appealable final order under Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993), as
Moseley would not be able to save his action by merely amending
his complaint.
2
To the extent Moseley challenges on appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion for an extension of time to file
objections, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding no good cause for the extension. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) (providing standard); Carefirst of
(Continued)
2
the motion for a transcript at the government’s expense and
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
Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396
(4th Cir. 2003) (stating standard of review for denial of motion
for extension of time).
3