Anthony Parker v. Schaeffler Group USA , 677 F. App'x 103 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-2303
    ANTHONY PARKER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (0:15-cv-00521-DCN)
    Submitted:   February 16, 2017              Decided:   February 21, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se.        Katherine Dudley Helms,
    Christopher Ray Thomas, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Parker appeals the district court’s order accepting
    the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his
    complaint.    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 the complaint be dismissed and advised
    Parker    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).    Parker has waived appellate review by failing to
    file     timely    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: 16-2303

Citation Numbers: 677 F. App'x 103

Judges: Duncan, Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024