Canzater v. Scott , 363 F. App'x 267 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7351
JERRY ALEXANDER CANZATER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENNETH SCOTT, Sergeant; JEREMY FELDER, Officer; OFFICER
HUDSON; OFFICER LIKELY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (0:08-cv-03481-HMH)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Alexander Canzater, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel C. Plyler,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Alexander Canzater appeals the district court’s
orders dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. 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 the complaint be dismissed
with prejudice and advised Canzater that failure to file timely
and specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. Despite this warning, Canzater failed to timely
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).
Canzater has waived appellate review by failing to timely file
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm both orders from which Canzater appeals. We deny
Appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3