Calvin Gaddy v. US District Court Columbia ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6954
    CALVIN LYNDALE GADDY, a/k/a Calvin L. Gaddy,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    U.S. DISTRICT COURT COLUMBIA; S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE;
    CLERK OF COURT JEFF HAMMOND; MRS. JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN; S.C.
    STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
    Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.; Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-01445-JFA)
    Submitted: December 18, 2018                                Decided: December 21, 2018
    Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Calvin Lyndale Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin Lyndale Gaddy appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his
    complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
    Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971), and 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2012). 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 Gaddy 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). Gaddy
    has waived appellate review by 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6954

Filed Date: 12/21/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2018