Tyler v. Wates , 84 F. App'x 289 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    LINDA ANN TYLER,                      
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    WILLIAM M. WATES, Mail Clerk;
    DEBRA DRENNEN, Class Chairman;
    MONICA COUNTS, State Class
    Supervisor; MICHAEL OSPSHAL,
    Cooper Trust Account; GERALDINE                  No. 03-7187
    P. MIRO, Assistant Director; QUEEN
    E. HURLEY, Sergeant; MARY J.
    TINCH, Sergeant; EDNA FAGGART,
    Business Manager; JEFFREY DESHAE
    PRICE, Sergeant; DEBRA ALSTON,
    Captain; DIANTHA LITWER, Grievance
    Coordinator,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
    (CA-02-3146-8-22)
    Submitted: November 26, 2003
    Decided: December 23, 2003
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    2                            TYLER v. WATES
    COUNSEL
    Linda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDON-
    ALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood,
    South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Linda Ann Tyler appeals the district court’s order dismissing her
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) complaint. The district court referred this
    case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B)
    (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
    advised Tyler that failure to file timely, specific objections to this rec-
    ommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order
    based upon the recommendation.
    Despite this warning, Tyler filed only general objections. She made
    general complaints about the magistrate judge’s handling of the case,
    but she did not state how the magistrate judge’s actions prejudiced
    her. Importantly, she did not dispute that she failed to submit evi-
    dence in contravention of the Defendants’ motion for summary judg-
    ment; she did not allege that she actually suffered a physical injury;
    she did not mention any Defendants by name; and she did not show
    how her allegations rose to constitutional levels.
    A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate judge’s report
    is tantamount to a failure to object. Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 
    932 F.2d 505
    , 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991). A failure to object waives appellate
    review. Wells v. Shriner Hosp., 
    109 F.3d 198
    , 201 (4th Cir. 1997). As
    Tyler waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections
    TYLER v. WATES                           3
    after receiving proper notice, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal con-
    tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the district
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7187

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 289

Judges: Widener, Michael, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024